Slashdot Mirror


Linux Desktop to Appear On Every Asus Motherboard

An anonymous reader writes "We first heard about Splashtop back in October, when the instant-on Linux desktop was announced. At the time it was a really exciting concept but Asus only rolled out the technology on high-end motherboards. Splashtop just announced that Asus will be expanding the desktop to the P5Q motherboard family and later on to all Asus motherboards. That's embedded Linux shipping over a million motherboards a month! The release also mentioned that the technology will be appearing on notebooks this year as well."

471 comments

  1. Out of curiosity... by neokushan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many people "switch" to Linux every month? I mean, if anyone has such a statistic, I'd be interested in seeing just how much this figure could potentially impact that (I know, chances are 99% of the people using these motherboards will still boot windows, but satisfy my curiosity =P).

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      1.17 million

    2. Re:Out of curiosity... by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In total, about 300 million Linux devices are produced each year. About 1% of that are servers and desktops. A larger proportion are laptops. Asus alone, sells more than a million Eee PCs per quarter. Consequently Linux laptops outsell Apple by a wide margin.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:Out of curiosity... by neokushan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting. So 300million linux devices per year, 1% of those are servers/desktops, that makes 3million a year, right?
      That's not as much as I thought it would be, these motherboards should certainly boost that figure.
      I wonder how long before Microsoft start shipping an embedded Windows version....

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:Out of curiosity... by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is absolutely no way of knowing. I know that last year I installed Mandriva on 5 computer newbie machines from the CD I downloaded. So if you're counting distro downloads, that metric is not reliable; one download can and probabally usually is more than one installation.

      Many people have their user-agent say they're using IE on Windows even if they're using Linux, bacsue dimwits still code their pages to not display if you're not using IE ("please upgrade to a modern browser? It's Opera's latest!") So web site metrics can't be reliable either.

      IINM it was Mark Twain (Samuel Clemons) who said "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and ststistics."

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42

    6. Re:Out of curiosity... by Ageing+Metalhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You got to realise that almost all TV STBs are now using Linux, the only exceptions are the one's running MS Mediaroom (al la U-Verse). So I would suggest that it would be more than 300 million per year. AM

      --
      The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
    7. Re:Out of curiosity... by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn ACs pulling numbers out of their asses...

      It's 1.18 million.

    8. Re:Out of curiosity... by ReverendLoki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm wondering if this figure of 3 million includes all of the small IT shops putting out Linux boxes for their clients, or the in-house IT departments picking up some bare hardware and putting Linux on them. Or even the old "obsolete"* MS Windows boxes that are being repurposed as Linux installs.

      * Obsolete in this case meaning that it doesn't have the muscle to adequately run Microsoft's latest and greatest, but still has enough oomph to run an OS that isn't a resource hog.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    9. Re:Out of curiosity... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I switch to linux every month or so.
      But I get fed up.
      Then I promptly switch back to whatever OS I feel like installing.
      Then I get fed up again.
      And I think 'Oh, someone on slashdot said that this is the time to switch to linux! I should try it AGAIN!'...
      then I switch to linux.
      Until I get fed up...

    10. Re:Out of curiosity... by abolitiontheory · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This would be interesting to know in terms of other statistics, such as how many new computer users are there every month. If people are "switching" to Linux but that number is outweighed by the number of uninformed new users just picking up a Windows machine, then its just noise.

      The fact is it still takes a very informed choice to switch to Linux. This type of thing could go a long way towards solving that ("what, an operating system already onboard?!"), but at the same time this is only one manufacturer and its the kind of thing only people building their own PCs are going to see, anyway.

      The general market still has so much to learn about other options besides Windows. Mac is gaining popularity because of cool-factor and crossover conversions, none of which Linux has. Honestly, it won't be until you can fool someone into using Linux before they figure out its not Windows that you will see a change in general market trends. Either that or some unforeseen landmark change in the computer landscape is going to have to take place.

      In this regard, the comparison between open source solutions and alternative energy options makes sense here, except that the open source industry has had _superior_, WORKING solutions for the past decade, and the alternative energies industry hasn't. Its kind of like people choosing to stick with their internal combustion engine technology and refusing to try out a hydrogen car because "no body else does." But really, its because there's been no mass awakening to it, and unlike the energy crisis, there isn't likely to be unless someone brings it about.

      Still, this is the extreme value of Linux to me: it's portability. Not *mobility*--we'll have to wait for Andriod for that--but its ability to fit on almost any system in any way. Scaleability and flexibility also apply here. I'd love to have a trusted operating system living at the hardware level of my comptuter. It seems to make sense in a way, even: the logical extension of CMOS in a way. Honestly, you're telling me motherboard hardware has improved for the past 10-15 years but we still have no better built in soft/firmware?

      I'm doing more brainstoming than actual technical analysis here, but these are the kinds of things that get me excited like that: speculating, hypothesizing, dreaming about a more open and inherently good future.

      Technorant, out.

    11. Re:Out of curiosity... by edbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I don't think it is so much that people are "switching" to Linux as much as additional people are using it. For example, these mobos will probably be sold to people who will then add hard drives, optical drives, etc. and then install some form of Windows. These people would be using Linux without exactly switching to Linux. At home, I have both Windows and Linux boxes for different things. Using Linux does not mean that I've abandoned Windows. As much as I would like to go all-Linux, there are practical considerations that prevent such a move at this time.

    12. Re:Out of curiosity... by AmaDaden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well at least I know who to call when i'm having problems installing an OS.

      In all seriousness I've been there. my best advice is dual boot but set some ground rules on what you permit your self to have in windows(or what ever OS you work best in but want to get off of). Personally I have the "no casual web browsing in windows" rule. Not doing anything that is windows only and want to browse the web? time to reboot. It keeps me in Linux 90% of the time so i (finally!) learned a lot about keeping a Linux system running. It hurt at first but I've gotten to the point where me in Linux is more productive then me in Windows.

    13. Re:Out of curiosity... by protobion · · Score: 1

      one download can and probabally usually is more than one installation. And vice versa, as well. I do think that downloading several distros and trying them out to settle on one is the norm, thus artificially expanding the Linux "switchers" metric.
      --
      Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    14. Re:Out of curiosity... by fwarren · · Score: 5, Funny
      Here let me fix that for you

      I switch to Widnows every month or so.
      But I get fed up.
      Then I promptly switch back to whatever Linux I feel like installing.
      Then I get fed up again.
      And I think 'All the marketing says that Windows is better than Linux! I should try it AGAIN!'...
      then I switch to Windows.
      Until I get fed up...

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    15. Re:Out of curiosity... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Well, these figures come from the big names like IBM marketing. The mom and pop shops are not included but a million is a helluvahuge number, so mom and pops won't change it significantly.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    16. Re:Out of curiosity... by belligerent0001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Instead of dual booting why not virtualize. Then you can install many different distros and try them out, when you get fed up you can go back to the host OS for a while until you decide to try another. Plus you don't have to constantly dump you installs, keep them for year that way. Plus you can clone it, screw it up then us the clone to fix what you screwed up. Just a thought. Try virtual box from sun, its free

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    17. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why must someone be "uninformed" to use Windows.

      Maybe instead they are informed of what software they wish to use, what OS it operates well with, and thus make a VERY INFORMED decision to not use an OS that would require substantial work to use with their software of choice.

      Just because someone doesn't use Linux, doesn't mean they are stupid.
      And with this type of prevelant attitude among Linux user's, you can bet that they will remain a very small minority.

      The true competition to Windows isn't linux, not on the desktop. It's Apple, and will be becuase Linux lacks quite a few things that everyday people require.

    18. Re:Out of curiosity... by JPLemme · · Score: 1

      It's silly, but I installed an unattractive Firefox theme on my Windows box, and removed some of my favorite extensions. Now surfing the web in Windows feels wrong, so I don't do it unless I have to.

      (And surfing the web in IE always feel wrong, but I don't think I need to point that out here.)

    19. Re:Out of curiosity... by ReverendLoki · · Score: 1

      I don't know... 5,000 independent contractors deploying 100 servers a year each adds up to a fair amount. Throw in an additional 10-20,000 small businesses deploying 1-5 a year. Plus some other made-up numbers I can't be bothered to imagine right now, but seem reasonable by my personal experience, and the sum really adds up...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    20. Re:Out of curiosity... by StarkRG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder how long before Microsoft start shipping an embedded Windows version.... Probably as soon as they can get vista to fit in 1gb of flash memory, make it boot instantly, be cheap, and not be a POS...

      It's one thing to have your OS die and you've got to reboot. It's another if your motherboard dies and you've got to buy another.
    21. Re:Out of curiosity... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There is no way to count Linux users.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    22. Re:Out of curiosity... by neokushan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well now come on, there's been embedded versions of windows for quite some time now, I believe there was an image floating around of an Embedded XP that was about 50Mb or so, so it's not entirely infeasible.
      Not to mention Minwin, if Microsoft really does pull off a minimalist, modular version of windows, then it's just begging to be stuck on a ROM on a motherboard.
      Plus, what better way to lock down a system than to have the OS as part of the hardware itself?

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    23. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you should start acting like 99.9% of other computer users, and focus on the application(s) you're interested in.

      What you describe makes no more sense than somebody standing in a hardware store with a different brand of wrench in each hand, trying to make up his mind which one he likes better. Meanwhile, at home, the water in the basement is making its way up the stairs toward the living room.

    24. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think some of these numbers don't quite make sense.

      300 Mil per year * 1% server/desktops = 3 Million server/desktops (I'm assuming the rest are embedded.) Fine. So far.

      Eee PCs (linux desktops) 1 Million per quarter * 4 quarters = 4 Million Eee PCs (linux desktops) per year.

      Last I checked 4 Million > 3 Million. Not including any other linux desktops, this doesn't make sense with your numbers. Although I didn't factor in the "about."

    25. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, what better way to lock down a system than to have the OS as part of the hardware itself? You dont need to, there is a better way, ask apple :) They make OSX Intel compatible, but, oh wait, cant install it on non-apple hardware.... due to "LEGAL" issues.

      If Apple had to support OSX on all the million different configurations that Windows has to run on, all the BS FUD about them making quality hardware/software will go away in a 2 seconds - A bunch of FOSS treehuggers can write 10 times better software than apple.
    26. Re:Out of curiosity... by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      I have the same rule. Windows is for stuff I can't run in Linux, like certain games.

      Since I implemented this policy, however, I have booted into windows .. three times in a year and a half. Guess I didn't need those games as much as I thought I did :)

    27. Re:Out of curiosity... by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      "Instead of dual booting why not virtualize. Then you can install many different distros and try them out"

      Not only that, but if someone is trying to keep it linux, can't you install a dual boot XP/Linux system, then mount the Windows partition through VMWare? Then you don't even NEED to reboot.

      Then again, if you're trying to make it as inconvenient as possible as a sort of 'punishment' for reverting, that doesn't exactly help.

    28. Re:Out of curiosity... by wampus · · Score: 3, Informative

      A few STB's may be running Linux, but a good chunk of them are running SARA or Passport.

    29. Re:Out of curiosity... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they do know how many devices other than desktops have been made and run Linux. As someone else mentioned, Linux is in a shit load of products. People who slag it off probably don't realise how often they use Linux in their day to day life.

    30. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've recently switched to Linux, and there's a steep learning curve at first, but once you overcome that it's much easier. My advice is to install linux on a second machine, which lets you practice on a linux machine but still able to do what you normally do on Windows. Also, try and befriend someone who knows how to use linux so you can bother them for hours on end with silly questions ;). Most of the difficulty is learning all the tools and the console commands..

    31. Re:Out of curiosity... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, 1.18 was the 31 days of January, and he is quoting for February.

    32. Re:Out of curiosity... by Ageing+Metalhead · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Only in the US.

      Majority of all STBs coming out of the far east run linux exclusively.

      --
      The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
    33. Re:Out of curiosity... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      why must someone be "uninformed" to use Windows.


      Because that's how popular-with-the-uninformed things work.

      Maybe instead they are informed of what software they wish to use


      Sorry, no. Please refer to my earlier explanation, re: popular-with-the-uninformed things. ;)
    34. Re:Out of curiosity... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Eee PCs are laptops and, thus, not included in the server/desktop number.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    35. Re:Out of curiosity... by timbck2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well now come on, there's been embedded versions of windows for quite some time now My car's (Acura TL) navigation system runs Windows CE. Not that you'd ever know it, there's no hint of a Windows-type interface at all. I think all Honda nav systems are the same.

      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
    36. Re:Out of curiosity... by H0p313ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why must someone be "uninformed" to use Windows. Maybe instead they are informed of what software they wish to use, what OS it operates well with, and thus make a VERY INFORMED decision to not use an OS that would require substantial work to use with their software of choice.

      preamble:

      • Comp. Sci. degree
      • DOS since 1.0
      • Windows since 3.0
      • Linux since 0.9 (experimental machine current runs Ubuntu 8.04)
      • shipped products written in Smalltalk, C, C++, VB, Python and Java

      Very well said. I like to think of myself as well informed, but you can't pay me enough money to run Linux on a games machine I share with my teenage son. It's just too much damn work for a lower framerate.

      In fact I would argue that the reason that my game machine is Vista on a quad-core is because I'm very well informed.

      However, I could do all my work on a linux box but since I get 100% IT support with no arguments if I keep using whatever came with my corporate laptop why bother since it only makes my life harder and saves no money until the entire organization gives up on Windows?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    37. Re:Out of curiosity... by neokushan · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's probably no mention of it running windows because of the defining amount of jokes that would be made about your car crashing...

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    38. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple lacks one thing, it's called freedom :)

    39. Re:Out of curiosity... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Very well said. I like to think of myself as well informed, but you can't pay me enough money to run Linux on a games machine I share with my teenage son. It's just too much damn work for a lower framerate. Not trying to convince you otherwise, but, oddly enough, two of the three games I've played on my desktop in the past 3 years actually run BETTER in linux.

      Oblivion doesn't (or didn't) like Cedega when I tried it. WoW and Guild Wars would blue-screen in Windows, but ran without many problems in linux (other than WoW breaking every 3 weeks because of some weird patch)

      Of course, I've ditched WoW and grew bored with the mechanics of Oblivion, so now GW and I live happily in Linux... though I may have to switch back to windows for awhile, depending on whether or not TexMod works under wine as well...
    40. Re:Out of curiosity... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      unless, of course, my hobbies include installing operating systems and playing with computers...

    41. Re:Out of curiosity... by StarkRG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right, there's an awful lot to be said about designing your OS to work perfectly on a limited hardware set over designing your OS to usually work somewhat well on most hardware.

    42. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      According to the Census Bureau, there are about 4.8 million businesses with 2-500 employees, and about 19.5 million companies with only a single employee. They don't have the clout of IBM, but there sure is a bunch of them. It'd be interesting to see what they do to the statistics.

    43. Re:Out of curiosity... by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      Since Microsoft doesn't make hardware they'd either need to convince motherboard manufacturers to do it or buy one.

      In order to get windows in such a small space they'll have to custom build it for each set of hardware. You're not going to get decent resolution since there won't be room to store the video driver (unless it's onboard video). And besides which Windows takes so much CPU it'd slow down the boot of the actual OS.

      The advantages of Linux in this case is that it's easily customized for size and speed, with a minimalist GUI you wouldn't have to borrow so many CPU cycles from the boot process. Oh, also, it doesn't cost anything.

    44. Re:Out of curiosity... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      That's tangential to his argument -- he was saying that all of the "uninformed" people use Windows, not that all Windows users are uninformed.

      I think this difference is taught in most 1st year CS classes, even though the logical confusion tends to crop up quite often in software algorithms :)

    45. Re:Out of curiosity... by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      The general market still has so much to learn about other options besides Windows. Mac is gaining popularity because of cool-factor and crossover conversions, none of which Linux has. Honestly, it won't be until you can fool someone into using Linux before they figure out its not Windows that you will see a change in general market trends. Either that or some unforeseen landmark change in the computer landscape is going to have to take place.

      I'm onboard with your general premise, but I think you go off the rails there at the end. I think Apple has shown with astonishing effectiveness the dirty secret that everyone's known in their hearts for years: everyone hates Windows. So this company comes along and says "hey! this is different! this is better! you know you've gotta have this!" and make money like fuckin' train robbers.

      This is where the free software community totally doesn't get the job done. We know how to deal with machines, but we don't know how to deal with people (although I think Aaron Seigo and the KDE folks are getting there quick). We've also got something that's different, something that's lightyears better, but we can't figure out how to sell this shit. Why on earth is that?

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    46. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how long before Microsoft start shipping an embedded Windows version....

      We don't have a suitable firewall here to protect us from such dangerous ideas.
      Would you mind cutting off your fingers? Thanks in advance for your help.

    47. Re:Out of curiosity... by mweather · · Score: 1

      In which case you should multi-boot, or have 5 or 6 desktops.

    48. Re:Out of curiosity... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      .... 3 or 4 laptops and a few desktops, but yes ...

    49. Re:Out of curiosity... by techprophet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, although you could chance it and try to flash the ROM to a Linux one.

    50. Re:Out of curiosity... by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Not trying to convince you otherwise, but, oddly enough, two of the three games I've played on my desktop in the past 3 years actually run BETTER in linux.

      That's pretty consistent with my experience, it kinda mostly works for some things but not others. My question though is have you tried to support multiple users accounts playing games in linux? I find wine/cedega makes this challenging enough to be not worth trying. You?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    51. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    52. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... never heard of Windows CE?

    53. Re:Out of curiosity... by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***bacsue dimwits still code their pages to not display if you're not using IE ("please upgrade to a modern browser?***

      Surely there must be some way to sterilize those birdbrains via the internet so that their genetic material is not allowed to contaminate the human gene pool.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    54. Re:Out of curiosity... by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      Benjamin Disraeli. Oh, and Samuel Clemens.

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    55. Re:Out of curiosity... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Until you buy a Mac and find it's time to settle down... depending on whether you like OS X either with your Mac or in a remote cave with no semblance of an OS for the next 50 miles.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    56. Re:Out of curiosity... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead they are informed of what software they wish to use, what OS it operates well with, and thus make a VERY INFORMED decision to not use an OS that would require substantial work to use with their software of choice.

      Thank you. Very insightful post.

      I'm getting sick of people judging each other on their choice of OS. You pick which one works for you, based on the available software and features, not for some silly nerd status symbol. Windows works for some people, as does Linux an OS X. This doesn't reflect the persons merit, just what OS conforms to their tastes.

      A part of it is what your used to. After a certain point the work you put into learning a new OS isn't worth the benefits you might get out of it. Why would I install Linux to do what I can do perfectly fine (and with a huge degree of muscle memory) with OS X, or Windows? I use my computer mostly for writing (text, not code), and some minor graphic design, Linux (or Windows, or OS X) won't make it easier. Sure, I'd be using the same software to write with (OpenOffice), but I'd have a new learning curve, so it would actually be harder. The lack of Photoshop plays a small role too, I don't feel like learning the Gimp when PS CS2 still serves all my needs (and I still feel like I need to make the license fee sodomy worth it).

      Even with all the dogging, Vista doesn't make the switch more valid. Vista really isn't nearly as bad as people make it sound. It's underwhelming as an upgrade, but not really worse than XP if you have the specs (which most do, these days). It still isn't worth the steep learning curve to change my OS, and full work flow.

      The true competition to Windows isn't linux, not on the desktop. It's Apple, and will be becuase Linux lacks quite a few things that everyday people require.

      I'll disagree here. Linux does have most of what people need. I could do everything I do on my current OS X and Vista installs in Linux without any real problem. I'm sure there are a couple proprietary software suites that Linux can't handle easily (though I'm sure a good VM would help), but these are increasingly rare. I'd also argue that Linux' smaller footprint would facilitate productivity slightly more than an equivalent app on OS X or Vista.

      I have been pondering trying the new Ubuntu release (when its slightly less buggy), since there is some functionality that Windows is lacking. Oddly, I'm talking about things that make it more Mac like. A free distro is better than updating (read: replacing) my aging Mac Mini. I still run into the learning curve issue though. I'm not a complete Linux novice, so I can only imagine someone switching to Linux for the first times curve.

      Sorry for the rambling rant.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    57. Re:Out of curiosity... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I don't know if it includes it,but I have found that "refurbing" old Windows boxes makes a great way to get reliable computers into the hands of those that don't have them. I often find working with SOHO shops that they have a couple of old machines they are getting ready to toss. Most are happy to donate them to me when i tell them I'll wipe the drive and put a free Linux on them and give them away to single mothers so their children have a way to work at home.


      I found that Puppy seems to be the best mix of size and usefulness,especially on former Win9X machines. I just think it is a shame how many functioning machines end up in the dumpster when they could be given a good home. Hell,my first gaming rig,which was a Pentium 100Mhz with a whopping 32Mb of RAM is still in use at a local lumbar company running DOS 3 as a ISA controller for an ancient lathe they have making custom columns. So the thought that folks will throw out a good running computer still just strikes me a wasteful to the extreme. But that is my 02c,YMMV.


      Oh,and as a disclaimer-I have actually thrown out a running machine in the past. I had a girl bring in her old computer to see if I could upgrade it for her in class. This poor girl had actually been doing her schoolwork on a 30Mhz with 12Mb of Simm RAM running Win 3.11. I took one look at that ancient thing and told her to leave it and I'd see what I could do. When the girl left the teacher asked "you aren't actually going to try to UPGRADE that thing,are you?" I told him HELL no! And when she showed up the next day I presented her with a 550Mhz that one of my SOHO clients had donated. Last I heard her kid was still doing his reports on his "new" machine,just as happy as a clam. I tried for a week to find a use for that 30Mhz,but damned if I could find a use for it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    58. Re:Out of curiosity... by kc2keo · · Score: 1

      VirtualBox works great for me for when I need to use something Windows-Only. 3d acceleration for gaming does not work though so it still requires me to dual boot for gaming. That is a pain.

    59. Re:Out of curiosity... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Everyone hates Windows, but they're familiar with it. And different than Windows is apparently thought of as more painful than just dealing with the bullshit that Microsoft heaps upon you.

      That said, there's a reason I've severely curtailed supporting Windows machines. If people are left to their own devices and not having an expert regularly maintain the system, they start realizing what a piece of crap Windows really is.

    60. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switch to linux every month or so.
      But I get fed up. ... I used to do the same - until (just about) a month ago. I switched to Ubuntu Linux on my HP Pavilion dv9000 laptop.

      Once I got past the WiFi thing (yes it works fine...now) everything has been wonderful. Or at least usable.

      I must admit that I have WinXP running inside of a VirtualBox instance. Somehow it runs faster under Linux than it does on its own. Go figure.
    61. Re:Out of curiosity... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Truly, 2008 is the year of Linux on the Set Top.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    62. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      But you know that 83.7% of statistics are just made up on the spot.

    63. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about linux do you get fed up about? Iv switched for a couple of years. All I had to do was to get all my devices working. Which was easy except for the stupid ati card. My newly built computer has everything working out of the box.

    64. Re:Out of curiosity... by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

      I expect Balmer will step up with his check book and this problem will go away.

    65. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why must someone be "uninformed" to use Windows.

      Because Windows users fail at grammar.

    66. Re:Out of curiosity... by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Don't knock it, it's still better than Atmos. (Well, less lethal, anyway.)

    67. Re:Out of curiosity... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Erm... Don't forget the Apple TV. It may not be a huge seller, but it's probably one of the most popular single makes of STB after TiVo.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    68. Re:Out of curiosity... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      I don't really think the OP meant to make a judgement here. Perhaps it would have been clearer or at least less politically inflammatory if they had simply said that "Windows is the default choice for most consumers who do not have specific computing requirements which would lead them to other OS choices." Just like (Apple's) iPod appears to be the default choice for those who don't require Ogg or any number of other features which may be a bit out of the mainstream purely by their lack of inclusion with the number-one selling product.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    69. Re:Out of curiosity... by ozbird · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder how long before Microsoft start shipping an embedded Windows version....
      Probably as soon as they can get vista to fit in 1gb of flash memory, make it boot instantly, be cheap, and not be a POS...

      They'd probably push Embedded XP. They've already backflipped on XP availability for the Asus EeePC etc., which does nothing to improve the image of Vista. ("Look, our soon-to-be discontinued 2001 OS can compete with Linux in the 'ultra-low cost' computer market!")

      However, I think they've painted themselves into a corner. If they bully Asus into providing an embedded XP version of the motherboards, the customer is bound to ask: "I don't want Vista; why can't I run XP as the OS on the same motherboard?" The more features that can be crammed into the embedded Linux version, the sillier Microsoft's inevitable justifications will seem ("It's not really XP", "you can't do real work in an embedded environment" etc.)
    70. Re:Out of curiosity... by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      I have, and most of what I said still stands for CE.

    71. Re:Out of curiosity... by tepples · · Score: 1

      You got to realise that almost all TV STBs are now using Linux, the only exceptions are the one's running MS Mediaroom (al la U-Verse). So I would suggest that it would be more than 300 million per year. So how many million Linuxboxen are made per year that aren't completely Tivoized, so that the owner of the machine can add to the software on it?
    72. Re:Out of curiosity... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a problem with cedega. Mostly in the "Utter waste of space" dept. since cedega installs everything in a subdirectory of ~... have to cp -R then chown, but at that point, works a treat

    73. Re:Out of curiosity... by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      I have the same rule. Windows is for stuff I can't run in Linux, like certain games.

      Since I implemented this policy, however, I have booted into windows .. three times in a year and a half. Guess I didn't need those games as much as I thought I did :) Similar thing happened to me. Although I didn't bother with the rules. I cobbled together a Linux box out of leftovers from past upgrades, so slow processor, slow video card, 40 gig hard drive etc, and a freshly rebuilt Windows XP box with my games on it. I switched between them with a KVM, so no problem having both working at once if I need them to.

      Within a few months, I found I was using the Windows box a couple of times a month, even though it was much faster than the rough and ready system I had Linux on, and I didn't feel like playing the games I had on it.
      A bit later, I decided to recycle the Windows box. I built a new Linux box, and Haven't looked back since. Now the Windows box is my HTPC/print server, as I'm going to get the most out of that XP license and the Linux box is used for my main computing tasks.
      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    74. Re:Out of curiosity... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      I'm curious - would that 30MHz be fast enough to run a Linux diskette firewall distro? Would seem to me if all it was doing was handling packets, it might be fast enough.

      I've got an old Compaq Deskpro 4000 which is my "emergency backup" machine if my main machine goes down. I got it from a Veterans Administration donation from Macy's. It was probably seven years old when I got it, and it's been another seven years since I got it. I upgraded the 266MhZ CPU to a 400MHz Evergreen upgrade, added another 256MB of memory, and installed another hard drive. It still runs, dual-booting Windows 98 on one disk and Slackware 10.1 on the other. The Slackware is pretty slow, but it runs and is WAY more powerful than Windows 98. Puppy would probably do fine. When I get a new machine this year, my current machine will become my backup and the old Compaq will get retired for parts as it's too damn big to leave laying around.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    75. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switch to linux every week.
      debian to fedora to slackware to zen to arch etc.

    76. Re:Out of curiosity... by DAldredge · · Score: 1
    77. Re:Out of curiosity... by ThePengwin · · Score: 4, Funny

      only 32.4 percent of people know that though

    78. Re:Out of curiosity... by mollymoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's also the 93% of the world's population who don't live in the USA. Some of them have businesses and computers too.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    79. Re:Out of curiosity... by afidel · · Score: 1

      BS, Scientific Atlantic and Motorola sell more STB's per month than Apple has sold Apple TV's ever.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    80. Re:Out of curiosity... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Puppy is awesome. When I first used it I knew I would never use Ubuntu again. WAY too easy and getting better with every release. It's really a testament to the power of open source.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    81. Re:Out of curiosity... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Suchart Jaovisidha didn't think it was a joke...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    82. Re:Out of curiosity... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      People who slag it off probably don't realise how often they use Linux in their day to day life.

      Most do know, but are shit scared because they make money from Microsoft.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    83. Re:Out of curiosity... by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      The true competition to Windows isn't linux, not on the desktop.

      Yes, it is.

      It's Apple,

      MacOS IS Linux. One certain, well set-up, nicely-tuned, pretty version of Linux.

      Welcome to the 21st century.

      and will be becuase Linux lacks quite a few things that everyday people require.

      What is it that macs lack that everyday people require?

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    84. Re:Out of curiosity... by rainhill · · Score: 1

      Hello I'm Mac, I'm feeling left out, lonely.. :(

    85. Re:Out of curiosity... by turing_m · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you should start acting like 99.9% of other computer users, and focus on the application(s) you're interested in.
      Yup. That makes converting infinitely easier. Research an alternative to a given application that runs on both MS and Linux, learn how to use it properly. Rinse, lather, repeat. When you have run out of applications you are now ready to change OS. If there is an application that doesn't have an alternative, either learn to live without it, try WINE, virtualization, or give up.

      It also pays to buy another hard drive to do a clean install on. It puts up enough of an extra barrier to running Windows that in most instances you won't do it. You wouldn't give up smoking by keeping a full packet of cigarettes in your shirt pocket, why do a similar thing with an OS?

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    86. Re:Out of curiosity... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Asus alone, sells more than a million Eee PCs per quarter.

      Huh? Asus reported 350k the last quarter of 2007, and 700k for first quarter 2008. They project 1.2 million for second quarter. However, a majority of that will be the models that come with Windows.

      Consequently Linux laptops outsell Apple by a wide margin

      Not even close. Apple sold 1.4 million laptops first quarter. Asus's 700k plus the rest of the Linux laptop vendors don't come anywhere near that.

    87. Re:Out of curiosity... by skegg · · Score: 1, Funny

      I tried for a week to find a use for that 30Mhz,but damned if I could find a use for it.
      Why don't you put Vista on it and give it to someone you hate?
    88. Re:Out of curiosity... by Eskarel · · Score: 1
      OS X is not linux, OS X is a heavily modified version of Unix(well BSD).

      Yes both systems are based on POSIX, and yes both systems have a lot of common attributes.

      However there is one thing that provides a massive differentiation between linux and unix/bsd. Linux comes with an ideology, and zealots. Linux comes with RMS and his ilk who actively set out to punish anyone who tries to make any sort of compromise whatsoever.

      The GPLv3 can basically be summed up as "I'm taking my ball and going home". And that's fine, GPL software belongs to the people who wrote it or to whatever organization holds the copyright. It is their ball and it's perfectly within their rights to take it and go home if the people playing with them aren't playing by their rules.

      The problem is that just like people stop playing with the kid who takes his ball and goes home, business is reluctant to work with linux.

      There's been an upsurge in the Linux market for the enterprise, new versions of RHEL, and SLES as well as Debian and Ubuntu and the like are getting increasing uptake, but for my money if Linux doesn't learn some pragmatism you'll see things like OpenSolaris and its ilk replacing Linux in the enterprise server market, and I don't see anything replacing Windows on the desktop(or for that matter in the Authentication or corporate e-mail spheres(exchange not just plain e-mail) spheres any time soon.)

    89. Re:Out of curiosity... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      You really shouldn't just strip it for parts if it is running good. I bet if you ask around I'm sure you'll find a single mom who could use a good machine for her kid. Just install Puppy where the slackware is now,along with the SNES and Sega emulators and you have a great little machine for doing homework along with a few hours of classic gaming afterwards. After all,gotta reward the kid for doing his homework. ;-)


      But seriously,if you ask around I'm sure you'll find someone who could really use it. I have given refurbs to a halfway house for battered women(They had me leave Win98 on them so they could run their typing teaching programs),a local church(not these rich mega monsters,but an actual church that used all the money donated to help the homeless. They are using Puppy with an OO.o spreadsheet to help manage supplies),single parents,etc.


      In times like these it never hurts to remember that there are a lot of less fortunate folks out there that could have their lives made a little easier by that old machine you're going to strip. While I have no problem stripping any dead boxes that come my way,whenever I get a running one that I don't need(and considering I have three from 733Mhz to 3Ghz not counting the laptop or the old Duron I still need to throw together I figure I have enough,LOL) I will always try to find it a good home. And so far with the exception of that 30Mhz that even I couldn't find a use for I have never failed. And it really makes you feel good to know that you've made someone's life just a little easier,you know?


      Oh, and for the poster that suggested using it for a router? No Ethernet and no PCI slots. ISA only. Believe me I had already thought about a headless router but it was just too damned old. That is one of the nice things about long lived standards. I can always dig a PCI Ethernet or graphics card out of my junk box,along with a couple of 32 or 64Mb Sdram chips and turn anything Win95 or better into something usable. I have found that Puppy runs great on as little as 200Mhz with 96Mb of RAM. And on 128Mb or bigger it really purrs. And lastly to the gentlemen who said I should have slapped Vista on it and given it to an enemy? At the time I was a Beta tester for Vista and my 3Ghz felt slower than that machine did most of the time,LOL! Oh,and I apologize about the length. It is just that I feel strongly about this subject and it is a great way for us tech guys to make a difference in someone's life without spending anything more than a little of our time and know-how. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    90. Re:Out of curiosity... by FrStephen · · Score: 1

      I'm reading this on a 350 MHz Dell P-II with 384 MB of RAM. I've got a couple of IBM P-IIIs running Ark Linux, and have another P-III & P-II that I plan to set up with Puppy (or Win 98 - there's too little RAM even for Puppy, without a swap file) for give-aways.

    91. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should buy a PS3 and do something useful with that quad that doesn't include running over bloated and over priced anti-virus and firewall software...obviously you're not well informed...and you're passing that onto your son. I'm shedding tears for the abuse he is suffering. :-) Just kidding. Windows rules.

    92. Re:Out of curiosity... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well, for every time Linux annoys me there's a three-step program:

      1. Check if what I want to run works well in WINE (some games, some apps)
      2. Check if what I want to run works in a VirtualBox (usually rest of apps)
      3. Dual boot (remaining games)

      It's been a long while since I've had to dual boot. Virtualization isn't the solution to everything, but it sure seems to save a lot of frustration...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    93. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embedded WIndows? I work in bookbinding/printing and every single one of the larger machinery is running XP embedded....

    94. Re:Out of curiosity... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention the popular windows really good edition.

      Go ahead and check out the link. Run the demo. It demonstrates all the goodness of windows.

    95. Re:Out of curiosity... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Count the ears and divide by two?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    96. Re:Out of curiosity... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Can I just say to the contrary, if someone wants to pay me money to run Linux games, I'm open to reasonable offers.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    97. Re:Out of curiosity... by tonyr60 · · Score: 1

      OS X is not linux, OS X is a heavily modified version of Unix(well BSD). To be pedantic, OS X is based on FreeBSD, which is a UNIX derivative. And I would not consider that it is a heavily modified version.

      Yes both systems are based on POSIX, Mac OS X is POSIX Compliant. FreeBSD and most Linux distros are partly POSIX compliant.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posix#Fully_POSIX-compliant

    98. Re:Out of curiosity... by You+ain't+seen+me! · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's also the 93% of the world's population who don't live in the USA. Some of them have businesses and computers too. Yes, but the USA have been doing their bit to reduce that figure in the last few years.
    99. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would also say that site metrics are probably not reliable but for a different reason.

      Yes, there are people that change the user agent for their browser but I'm pretty sure they are a very small number. I don't remember the last time I came across a website that insisted that I use IE (although I admit they do still exist) and I never use IE.

      I would say that site metrics are a poor measure because which site do you choose? Slashdot has a disproportionatly high number of Linux users where as microsoft.com more windows users. Probably the best you could do would be something like news.bbc.co.uk as the appeal of the content will probably be fairly independent of OS choice. Having said that there is, of course, a skewing factor in that Linux users are more likely to be in the tech industry and spend more time online. Of course there is also the problem that many servers run linux and they don't generally "hit" websites.

    100. Re:Out of curiosity... by Laurence0 · · Score: 1
      Out of all the people I know who use computers... The majority use Windows, as you'd expect, because it's what they're used to, it's what came on their computers when they bought them. Quite a lot of my friends use Linux though, as being a geek, I have geeky friends.

      The point I'm making though is that I only know one person who has used Linux enough to count as someone who "knows Linux", and yet still uses Windows. So, out of the people who know both operating systems well enough to make an informed choice, only 5% have picked Windows.

    101. Re:Out of curiosity... by bigtomrodney · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Puppy run as root all of the time?

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
    102. Re:Out of curiosity... by demallien2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What a load of rubbish. I write libs explicitly to be deployed on STBs as a day job. Although the high end boxes that are starting to hit the market certainly are running linux, it's far from the majority. I see a lot running things like OS21- mostly because ST seems to supply a huge percentage of CPUs for the STB market. To date I have integrated the libs on linux exactly twice, and one of those was for a product that never came to market.

      That said, I'm sure that in the years to come, Linux is going to take an evergrowing slice of the pie. But I wouldn't expect it to have a majority for at least another 3-4 years. And with the advent of Media Server PCs, XBox360/Playstation, AppleTV, I rather expect the traditional STB to disappear before Linux ever becomes dominant.

    103. Re:Out of curiosity... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      The population or businesses and computers figure?

      *Pictures black helicopters performing airstrikes on server farms*

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    104. Re:Out of curiosity... by caluml · · Score: 1

      I switch to linux every month or so. But I get fed up. I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you don't have enough tenacity to stick at things, and work through problems. I see problems as challenges, and I can't get to sleep easily until I've fixed them.
    105. Re:Out of curiosity... by caluml · · Score: 1

      What is this "world", of which you speak? Mexico and Canada, right?

    106. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know Linux, but for BSD the answer is 24.

    107. Re:Out of curiosity... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Yeah, which is what I like about it. You have more direct control. I hated ubuntu because you have to sudo everything to get anything done. Puppy didnt demand I already be a linux god in order to get my wifi working.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    108. Re:Out of curiosity... by bigtomrodney · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be keen on that myself, that means your media player,browser or similar user application is on the same level as your system services. A similar situation to this is the root cause of problems in Windows in my opinion.

      When you think about it, how often do you need to make system changes? I know I'm more busy using my PC than configuring it past the first hour or two of a fresh install.

      You only need to get your WiFi card working once!

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
    109. Re:Out of curiosity... by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Well like the Eee PC, it would probably be a stripped-down XP.

    110. Re:Out of curiosity... by ianalis · · Score: 1

      You're all wrong! It's 42%.

    111. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Consequently Linux laptops outsell Apple by a wide margin.
      no they dont. The EEE is not in a niche even occupied by an apple product (sub $475). They are literally Apples and oranges.

      I don't believe in the Apple lie so don't accuse me of being a fanboi ROFL. I run Gentoo with a compiz desktop (secondarily booting to Windows for gaming) and have *never* owned a single Apple product despite being able to easily afford them.

      I'm after performance not pretty. I've had an 8800 640MB, 8.4Ghz (total) multi core cpu, and 4GB ram since March of last year. It cost me $1200 to build it. Go do the math on an equivalent Apple product.

      -AC

    112. Re:Out of curiosity... by westlake · · Score: 1
      There is absolutely no way of knowing.
      Many people have their user-agent say they're using IE on Windows even if they're using Linux, bacsue dimwits still code their pages to not display if you're not using IE... So web site metrics can't be reliable either.

      Does the geek really believe that changes in the user agent are statistically significant?

      How many users know the agent exists?

      How many would be comfortable making a change?

      There is no intelligible reason for the agent to claim that it is running on Vista when it is not running on Vista.

      OS Platform Stats [April 2008]

      How then to explain why Vista shows a 9% share in the W3Schools stats - up from 0% in January 07 - and Linux 4% - up from 2% in March 03?

      The Net Applications are far less charitable:

      Operating System Market Share [Versions], Top Operating System Share Trend

      You have to explain why the numbers and trend lines for OSX look about right while Linux struggles to gain a 1% share.

    113. Re:Out of curiosity... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I'll wipe the drive and put a free Linux on them and give them away to single mothers so their children have a way to work at home.

      And what kind of jobs do you expect these children, who are working at home, to get?

    114. Re:Out of curiosity... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      That's so, but I was referring to desktop Linux. Linux will and does run on anything from a wristwatch to a supercomputer.

      Those touch screen game machines that run multiple games you see in every bar in existance? Their OS is Linux, as I found out once when the power went out in a bar.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    115. Re:Out of curiosity... by abolitiontheory · · Score: 1
      You're right. You're SOOO right. You said what I was trying to say much better than I did.

      And your rhetorical questions about Linux user interface are exactly the same as mine. It's one of those pet passions of mine, the Linux Desktop Aesthetic Experience(TM). I'd love to be the one who saves the world by inventing The Perfect Linux Desktop. Ahh, dreams, dreams.

      Thanks for drawing this out. You hit the nail on the head with about ten hammers straight.

    116. Re:Out of curiosity... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get your point; I mostly just use the machine. Security issues haven't been a problem for me under windows much less linux so it isnt an issue. I have had to swap hardware or rebuild machines often enough that I appreciate the simplicity. Booting to a puppy desktop from cd takes about a minute. I(t doesn't take much longer to do a full HDD install. Last time I installed windows it was 2hrs+. Ubuntu never really got running due the the wifi issues.

      Because of the way Puppy is structured, it's virtually impossible to get a virus as you can boot from a cd and save only session settings to the HDD.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    117. Re:Out of curiosity... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      There's also the 93% of the world's population who don't live in the USA. Some of them have businesses and computers too.

      It's 95.44%, the US is smaller than you might think.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

    118. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is it still takes a very informed choice to switch to Linux. Not true. A (non-nerd) retirement-age friend's (MS Windows XP) laptop had "mysteriously" ground to a halt and he asked me to sort it out for him. After purging the 153 virii etc. from it I suggested he try Ubuntu instead. He agreed.

      Aside from the fact that it was free (as in beer) and that it "came with" c. 25,000 free (as in beer) applications - Sudoku being installed by default clinched it for him.

      I popped out for a pee during the final Ubuntu install reboot and (expecting to have to explain its differences to MS Windows to him) to my surprise he was happily running Sudoku, Firefox and OpenOffice.org on my return. This is from a man who calls IT support to help him create Windows' shortcuts.

      I've been through similar processes for others and we've now got a nice little local community of (non-nerd) Ubuntu enthusiasts developing here.

      I call them up periodically just to make sure they haven't died or something given the suspicious lack of IT support requests. The invariable answer is "No, I'm fine. This Ubuntu's great!"
    119. Re:Out of curiosity... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Does the geek really believe that changes in the user agent are statistically significant?

      Or that counting page views is? Or that counting page views by IP address is? The answer to all three questions is, of course, no.

      OS Platform Stats [April 2008]

      And where did these numbers come from? Counting page views, or counting page views per IP, is not a valid metric. In fact, there is no valid metric. The very best you can do is a barely educated guess.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    120. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista fits in 1GB. In fact... the Vista's memory footprint is 642MB. However... because Vista is so damn slow it preloads as much as it can to make Vista look like it is as 'fast' as you think it is. So when you look at whatever Vista offers you to monitor your memory footprint it will look like it needs more than 642MB but it just shows how much memory is being optimally used. That is why Vista 'consumes' so much memory in order to run faster aka loads all your apps by default.

    121. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're neglecting to consider Linux users who install from disc, which, by far, accounts for the majority of Linux users, in contrast to those who choose (or are able) to buy pre-installed.

      Even if the self-installed versus pre-installed numbers merely matched 1:1, that easily meets the 1.4 million figure you quoted.

    122. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't prove a lot. The metric on W3Schools is hardly an accurate representation of actual usage.

    123. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not consider that it is a heavily modified version.

      O RLY? Install your choice of BSD and try claiming it closely resembles OS X.

      Mac OS X is POSIX Compliant.

      So what exactly have you added here? You state it as if you're besting the GP by refuting a point or something.

    124. Re:Out of curiosity... by bigtomrodney · · Score: 1

      Ah I see, that's quite interesting. I took you to mean you had it installed to your system hard disk.

      Yep that would certainly mean that a reboot would solve almost anything. As long as you weren't sharing a system with another system that you could damage that would be a nice 'embedded' system, almost like running from a chroot or VM.

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
    125. Re:Out of curiosity... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      You can install puppy entirely to disk if you want. It runs just as well from CD, USB flash drive or USB hard drive. Puppy doesn't care where you install the OS files, it just looks for a file containing session settings, etc.. So long as it can find that it just runs. Security through simplicity.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    126. Re:Out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds more like OCD than tenacity...

    127. Re:Out of curiosity... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      Why home work of course! Seriously to the above poster about Puppy security: While that would be a concern if the machines I'm giving away were to actually get on the Internet(and I think there is a way to run Puppy as non-root.I just haven't had the need to) since they are being given away to poor folks and charities they won't be seeing the Internet.


      A good example is the one I gave to the church,which has a couple of OO.o spreadsheets to track costs and supplies,along with a simple database I cooked up using the wizard so they can keep track of names and addresses. And the single moms simply take a cheapy flash stick over to the local printer when the child needs to print a report as he will only charge them a dime if he even bothers to charge them at all. The only problem I have is I never seem to have any monitors,but luckily the shop down the street knows what I'm doing and when a client says I sent them he'll let them have a 17in at his cost,which is $40. If they don't have one I sell them a USB stick at cost(which I used to give for free but my money is tight right now).


      So for $44 they have a machine that doesn't crash, loads quickly, and gives them all the software they need to do any basic household computing chore. And it is nice to have someone stop you who you gave a machine to ages ago and have them say how it made their lives easier and it is STILL running strong. A much better use than having them dumped in a landfill somewhere,don't you think? But that is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Huh. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always bought Asus anyway; they make good boards, and the few times I've had problems they've replaced them...Once I even got a free upgrade because they'd discontinued the board I had.

    So it's not going to change my purchasing, but it's still nice.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Huh. by Znork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they make good boards

      I have to agree. I've made some forays into MSI (a relationship that was abruptly and permanently terminated when I discovered I had to have XP to upgrade the BIOS), EPoX and AOpen.

      But after that MSI foray I'll be sticking to ASUS for the foreseeable future; I have yet to purchase an ASUS board that I haven't been perfectly happy with throughout its lifecycle (well, I had one or two die of the bad capacitor issue a few years ago, but that was only 30% of my ASUS boards while 100% of the other branded boards died from it).

    2. Re:Huh. by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Last time I _didn't_ choose Asus when buying a motherboard, I really paid for it with wasted time and money. I don't plan to make that mistake again myself.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    3. Re:Huh. by atrus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've learned to buy Asus and SuperMicro boards only as well. You can't beat the SuperMicro boards when you need a solid but still affordable Dual-Xeon setup with 16GB of RAM :)

    4. Re:Huh. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      According to Gigabyte, ASUS lie to us a lot. Still, my ASUS board is good, but I have had good experiences with Gigabyte and DFI boards.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    5. Re:Huh. by tkdtaylor · · Score: 1

      I went from Asus to DFI and ALL (2) of my DFI boards have now died and I'm back to Asus.

    6. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asus seems to know what they are doing with Linux. I'm very pleased with the eee-pc900. They pre-installed there (modified Debian) Linux with a lot of applications and it all works very nice.
      (typing this on it right now)

    7. Re:Huh. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity... how many computers a year do you lose to bad capacitors?

      30% still seems astronomically high to me. I would have guessed 3% or similar. What is it that you're doing where 100% of a brand of motherboards burn out?

    8. Re:Huh. by multipartmixed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He said "a few years ago"

      I'm assuming it was those specific few years ago when a Taiwanese capacitor company was selling bad caps. These caps had electrolyte in them made with a formula stolen from a Japanese company. Said Japanese company, though, was wise to the industry pirates and slipped them a time bomb.

      Those caps made it in *everywhere* -- or so it seemed. And is actually probably why it's so much easier to find Slot 1 and Socket 370 CPUs than it is to find boards to put 'em in.

      Oh, look, here's a nice wikipedia article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:Huh. by jps25 · · Score: 1

      I've made some forays into MSI (a relationship that was abruptly and permanently terminated when I discovered I had to have XP to upgrade the BIOS), EPoX and AOpen. You're wrong.
      You can apply BIOS updates on MSI boards on non-FAT-filesystems, but you need a win98 or winME bootfloppy and a floppy with the bios.
      You can also make a boot-cd with freedos (you should only need kernel.sys and command.com) and the BIOS-files.

      Disclaimer: I haven't done it myself yet, since mine came with the latest BIOS, but have heard from others who had no problems. Still, your hardware, your responsibility.

    10. Re:Huh. by rocketPack · · Score: 1

      I worked in a computer store for a year where we sold 95% Asus boards (low end stuff, usually). A few hundred a year, probably. The DOA/failure rates for those boards had to be less than 1 in 100.

      Then I switched to a company using desktop MSI boards (when they should have been using more industrial grade stuff, but they were too cheap to cut into their 99% profit margin), and I built a hundred or so of those machines a year for over 2 years. The DOA/failure rates for those boards was probably about 1 in 25.

      Not the most thorough analysis, but my anecdotal experience suggests that MSI boards are not worth it - even the cheap boards (like Soltek) offer better quality at a lower price point with no feature compromise.

      On a side note: the one factor I noticed between both jobs was that Maxtor hard drives are completely worthless.

      Having said that, I think it's great that Asus has added this functionality to motherboards. I didn't RTFA but I am wondering if it's possible for this platform to run some type of AV and/or disk utilities (file system repair, disk cloning, ...) to aide users in recovering from catastrophes, upgrade hardware, etc...

    11. Re:Huh. by Znork · · Score: 2, Informative

      It depends on the board. Some MSI boards are flashable with the metod you mention; for the K9N Neo-F I can't even get a bios file to download from MSI. You apparently _have_ to use Live Update to update it.

      Had it supported the method you mention, that would have been perfectly acceptable (I went through the whole read-manual-'Ok, no load from USB disk, well, I'll just use a CD... oh, no CD, I'll write a bootable floppy, uh, where's the download link for the BIOS... uh... there isn't a download link for the BIOS. I have to use _WHAT_? An ActiveX control or a XP program??);

      That not even DOS based updates are possible is what had me quite appalled, the very idea of making a motherboard that cannot be updated without being up and running in a full copy of windows had previously struck me as unthinkable.

      I've had no problems with MSI boards otherwise, and as long as you do your research to avoid the Live-Update only boards you're probably fine. For me, however, the mindset that produces products with that kind of issues leaves me with a bad taste.

    12. Re:Huh. by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      I purchased a "Striker Extreme" motherboard from ASUS a couple of months back. Lotsa nice features - blue LCD screen that reads POST and pre-POST error messages, power and reset buttons built onto the board itself, and lots of other nice things that are great for system builders.

      But, early versions had a temperamental BIOS, which would cause it not to boot with certain types of RAM, or with a keyboard plugged in, or any other number of things. Support forums claimed that some mobos were shipped bricked, and abounded with what amounts to superstition: "Try it with or without RAM. Try slower RAM. Mine worked after attaching a PS/2 and a USB keyboard" etc etc.

      Mine wouldn't POST. But, it turned out to be a defective power supply, and firmware updates on that motherboard is ridiculously easy anyways. (When it actually has power) You can do it from a floppy, USB key, CD, or even from Windows (not that I would recommend that last one.)

      Rambling point: even at their worst, Asus makes good stuff. And now they crammed an OS in there, too. I imagine a very flat penguin pressed into the PCB between the north and south bridge, accompanied with some robot chicken music...

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    13. Re:Huh. by Znork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep, exactly right. They really were everywhere; it went so far I even got a bunch of replacement caps and recapped a couple of boards and some PSU's. Really annoying failure modes also; mostly the affected equipment would just develop tendencies to lock up or crash when spiking in power usage (games, number crunching, etc), until one day it would fail to start (usually after 18-36 months, at which point warranty returns might be more trouble than it's worth).

      Apart from geeks actually tearing the equipment apart and noticing the suave way the capacitors were slobbering I expect most people ended up retiring the equipment early. I can barely imagine how much frustration and lost work the problem has caused worldwide.

    14. Re:Huh. by jps25 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, thank you.
      This is indeed quite stupid.

    15. Re:Huh. by MojoStan · · Score: 1

      I've learned to buy Asus and SuperMicro boards only as well. You can't beat the SuperMicro boards when you need a solid but still affordable Dual-Xeon setup with 16GB of RAM :) If we're including workstation/server boards in this discussion...

      I mourned when Tyan stopped making "consumer" desktop boards. For workstation/server boards, I lean toward Tyan (Opteron and Xeon) and SuperMicro. Stability, reliability, and support are what's important here.

      In my experience, Intel-brand desktop boards have these same qualities, but they don't have the "enthusiast" features many users want (e.g. overclocking). For AMD-based desktops, I guess I'll go with Asus (based on comments in this thread).

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    16. Re:Huh. by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      I don't know, Asus's quality and services have been slipping with Gigabyte gobbling their lunch...

      Maybe things are different on the non-linux side...

    17. Re:Huh. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      As always, YMMV. I've had terrible luck with Asus, most of their motherboards I've had failed within a couple of years. Some were obviously bad caps, but others had no apparent problems other than them no longer working. I think for a while they were trying to get away without putting northbridge fans on motherboards that really needed one (their VIA KT400/KT600 boards come to mind), as the heatsink would get really hot and similar motherboards from other manufacturers usually had a fan, and the heat would eventually kill the northbridge. At work, the computers with dual head video cards are typically Asus branded nVidia chipset video cards, and those cards also like to fail after a year or two, though that might be nVidia's fault as the few ATI based ones are pretty much problem-free.

      To be honest, I've not had much luck with the likes of Gigabyte and AOpen either. My best motherboards seem to be from the "2nd tier" makers - not the big names like Asus but not crap like PCChips either. I'm talking brands like Soltek and Biostar.

    18. Re:Huh. by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      I have to say my new Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP has a brilliant BIOS flashing feature. Copy the new BIOS to a USB flash drive, reboot, press a key combination and flash the BIOS directly off the flash drive.

      Regards
      elFarto
  3. In other news... by erroneus · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...ACME brick has set up a lucrative partnership with Microsoft. As it turns out, Microsoft brick-shitting production has been increasing over the past few years and their surpluses have been able to yield a sustainable production rate. Microsoft has been unavailable for comment on their deal with ACME brick, but an ACME spokesman has been noted as having quested that Microsoft boost its dietary fiber intake in order to boost the quality of their new product.

    1. Re:In other news... by slarrg · · Score: 1

      In an attempt to comply and seem more high-tech, Microsoft has instructed all of their employee's to use carbon fiber bowls with their company-mandated, soup-only diets. The marketing department has already assured the various public works departments that the new bricks will be perfect for building bridges and other large architectural projects.

  4. That is nice by Numeros · · Score: 0

    Maybe more people will get to try linux.

    1. Re:That is nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe more people will get to try linux. Just don't forget to pay your $699 SCO licensing fee.
    2. Re:That is nice by MRiGnS · · Score: 1

      This maybe news to you but SCO lost...

  5. Year of the Linux of Desktop by ehaggis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe Duke Nukem Forever will also be included.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    1. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Troll

      This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support for an install mechanism where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a whole program including notifying and automatically installing programs it is dependent upon.

    2. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 0

      ... because, as we all know, what people want their desktop for is to install all day long hundreds and hundreds of packages.

    3. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Because, as we all know, a kernel is useless without applications to run, and that it only takes on application that someone wants and can't get installed to make someone ditch Linux.

    4. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      > This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support
      > for an install mechanism...

      By writing this you reveal yourself to be clueless. The kernel would never do anything so complex, that is what userspace is for. But anyway, assuming you really mean a Linux distro....

      > ..where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a
      > whole program including notifying and automatically installing
      > programs it is dependent upon.

      And just where have you been the last five years? Most RH/RPM based distros will do just that. Click on an RPM package and it will ask if you want to install it. But nobody smart does it like that. At most you would use the click to install bit to install a REPO and then just use the same package manager you use to install the distro supplied packages.

      Why limit yourself to the old painful way Microsoft and Apple do things when technology is being innovated over here in Linux/UNIX land? What could be more convienent than adding a repository once and then making that 3rd party software collection a seamless part of the system. You get automatic notifications through the update widget, exactly the same as if it were included from the original OS vendor.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Blice · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried installing things through a .deb? They're pretty nice and easy, click on the .deb, asks you if you want to install, and then it installs. It puts everything in the right places, programs into your menu, etc...

    6. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Linux kernel will never have such support. Native or not (whatever that means).

      The Linux kernel manages computer resources (CPU, memory, devices) on behalf of applications. It pretty much stops after loading initrd and executing /init on it. Anything after that is an application from the kernels perspective, and the flow of control becomes application driven.

      Yes, it is possible to implement an entire application at this level (I've built installers that only use this), and I suspect that the Asus effort will be implemented at this level.

      But double click installing of applications? Not the kernels responsibility.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    7. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Maybe Duke Nukem Forever will also be included."

      "This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support for an install mechanism where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a whole program including notifying and automatically installing programs it is dependent upon."
      I don't see why everyone is calling you clueless. You are dead on the money. Duke Nukem Forever and putting things that clearly do not belong in a kernel in the Linux kernel will happen right around the same time. When penguins migrate to Hell for the cooler climate.
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by basiles · · Score: 3, Informative

      This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support for an install mechanism where by I can double click on a single file This will hopefully never be the role of the Linux kernel. Installation mechanisms (such as package managers like aptitude) are in user land (they are ordinary programs doing system calls). Also, the kernel does not manage mouse clicks. It manage only peripherals (like USB mouses) which are sending bytes. Some application (like the X11 server and toolkits) has to understand these as meaningful clicks.
    9. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Troll

      I lost you about half way through. And I work in IT. So the casual user (The other 99% of users) definitely won't have a clue what you are talking about. I mean I like how Ubuntu can install things from the add/remove panel but what if I want Apache on my installation and they don't offer it? What then? I'm sure the server Distro has it but what of it. I just want to be able to double click the damned thing and install it. And No RPM packages for Apache so that doesn't work.

    10. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just imagine when Linux get's to the point where we can play games on the desktop.
      But I'm not sure any sane person would want to apt-get install Crysis 3 with a 15GB install package.
      Plus,..the Linux installers leave the End User clueless as to where the program was installed too.
      At least with windows,..an Icon is dropped to the desktop for one click operation. I use Elive Linux and it's a B____ to even get a working Icon to desktop.

    11. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0

      This would be great if everything was available with a .deb file which it is not.

    12. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You people are not getting me at all. The point is it has to be something that EVERY SINGLE LINUX DISTRO IMPLEMENTS THE SAME. The Kernel may not be responsible for this but my point is that when people use Linux they use Linux and they don't care what distro it is they just want it to work. What you are saying may be right from a technical standpoint but it is absolutely wrong from a user standpoint and that is the point I'm trying to make. People will never use Linux if the experience keeps being inconsistent.

    13. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does sound like you're perfectly qualified to admin Windows systems.

    14. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the kernel have any awareness of double-clicking on files, or automated application updates?

    15. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > but what if I want Apache on my installation and they don't offer it?

      Bad example since they all do include Apache, but I get your point. Ok, here is how it works. Lets take Fedora since I was talking about RPM based systems and I don't know nearly as much about Debian based ones.

      Fedora is based in the USA and sponsored by Red Hat, Inc. so they can't include certain radioactive bits that almost everyone wants, like mp3 support. So you just hop over to rpm.livna.org and click on the link for your version of Fedora. It serves you up an RPM package for their repository and the browser does the right thing. Up pops a dialog box asking if you want to install the package and if you say yes it prompts for the root (administrator for you Windows folk following along) password. Once that one small package is installed all of the software maintained by Livna (safely outside the USA) is a part of your system.

      But nothing much has actually happened yet. Next you launch the same package manager you use to add/remove OS components and you find that a lot of new things have appeared. And when Livna updates a package it appears in the list of packages that need to be updated right along with the ones Fedora updates.

      Contrast with the Windows/Mac world. Each 3rd party application, game, utility, etc. has to have it's own mechanism to find out if it has been updated, code to bug you to update, etc.

      The best comparison would be to imagine a world where Microsoft made Windows Update an open platform that everyone could use. So that one unlucky morning you booted up and the Windows Update gadget in the toolbar announced you had a critical update to IE, a couple of random Windows bug fixes, bug fixs from Adobe for Photoshop and Flash Player and a new version of your fav utility that displays your hard drive temp was available. Grr. there goes an hour and a couple of reboots. :)

      And it all 'Just Worked.' You don't have an OS and a motley collection of 3rd party apps, you have a seamless System.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    16. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by marnues · · Score: 1

      Server distro? Every standard distro has Apache. Every standard distro has every standard package. Why do people insist that Linux distro's make things difficult. Stick to the arguments about the software not running on Linux. That argument is at least a cop-out on the part of the developer and not the end-user. I will agree that many repository websites are difficult to navigate, but that's because few people access them that way. And by repository, I mean the equivalent of downloads.com (if that's still the standard way to get things for windows). As for you not understanding what the GP was talking about, I'm going to assume you're more of a hands on learner then and that you have never had the hands on time. Its a different (read: better and easier) paradigm, but functionally its the same.

    17. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What could be more convienent than adding a repository once and then making that 3rd party software collection a seamless part of the system. I dunno, double-clicking it? I get your point, repos are cool, but I'm sure many people enjoy double-click installers. Even if I can type emerge *program* and have it get all the libs and stuff and have it compile for me, sometimes it doesn't beat just DLing and clicking for some people. Hell, they could even make it so packages include a repo link to add to your manager for all I care.
    18. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by dextromulous · · Score: 1

      So... apt-get is too "command line," synaptic surely must be close to what you're looking for. If not, there's always Click-n-Run. By the way, the Linux kernel has always had "native support" for such an install system (all that is required is for the kernel to be able to read and write files.) The problem is nobody wrote such a program for several years. Many Linux distributions have avoided "dependency hell" (the problem you are describing) since I started using Linux around 2002.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    19. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great thing about the kernel is its flexibility. Why stuff it full of crap. One of windows many downfalls is the way it effectively burns an application into the system by using an installer (I'm thinking the registry mainly here).

    20. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Of course apps are needed. From what you and the GGP say, it is clear neither of you has used a semi-modern distro and their packaging systems (of course, I am disregarding the GGP's remark that install mechanisms should be in the kernel, as it only shows that he really has no understanding of what he is talking about). Yum and its analogues have solved the problem an age ago.

    21. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      strangely the title of your post makes sense. if gnu/linux is to come to "the desktop" it will have to do so by circumventing the monopolist. getting gnu/linux into the bios is one cool way of doing this.

      just imagine what it will be like in 2 years, if a modified ubuntu could be found on every mother board.

    22. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by L+Boom · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think they're misunderstanding, they just disagree. I'll put it this way: I just switched to Linux this past January and I'm extremely happy with it. With the exception of the wireless in my laptop (Broadcom), it was incredibly easy to get Ubuntu (and a few other distros I was messing around with) up and running, and be able to play around with it.

      I was completely illiterate with regard to command line stuff, but I've figured out a great deal along the way. Even when I first began, installing packages was probably the single easiest thing to do in the OS. Installing a package from Synaptic is ridiculously easy, and it grabs all the dependencies an application needs. Anyone with so little knowledge of how computers work that they can't figure out a package manager is someone who wouldn't be doing anything like installing their own programs in Windows, so that's really not a fair comparison.

    23. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just out of morbid curiosity, what kind of company would hire "IT" guys who don't know basic IT stuff?

    24. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry doesn't work that way... if every distro worked the same way, there would be only one distro. If you want it to always work the same way stick with ONLY Ubuntu, or ONLY Fedora, or ONLY w/e you want. Ubuntu always installs apps the same way. I don't know if it was you or whoever, but the "install Apache by double clicking" doesn't even happen on Windows. If you don't know how to edit a server config, Apache won't be very usable to you in that state (from what I remember)

      And if you want to install Apache, I sure as hell hope you know how to do more then just double click an icon.

    25. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      I use Elive Linux and it's a B____ to even get a working Icon to desktop.
      That is a function of the Window Manager.. KDE..Gnome..etc.

      Plus,..the Linux installers leave the End User clueless as to where the program was installed too.
      Most RPM tools give you a list of files, dependencies, and paths... I am not sure what Debs do.

      But I'm not sure any sane person would want to apt-get install Crysis 3 with a 15GB install package.
      Though I tend to agree with you on this, your audience consists of ./ers. By nature, somewhat insane.
      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    26. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks installers belong in the kernel needs to go back to grade school, let along high school or college. A unified, easy install mechanism that worked for any linux distro would be nice, but that has nothing to do with the kernel. Installers are applications, not OS components. That holds true on Windows too, by the way. There is nothing in the Windows kernel that has anything to do with the installer.

    27. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I don't like the registry either. I'm just saying to install it should be easier out of the box.

    28. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      Maybe Duke Nukem Forever will also be included.

      Dude. That game has been available for several years and works great with the latest version of Perl. Unfortunately it's only been tested with Windows but since it's Perl we should be able to port it easily to Linux.

      Where have you been man ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    29. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how can I play Duke now that I'm using Linux? Noooooo!

    30. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      It's not an issue of the distro. Windows does have the Windows Installer service, but it is far from being the most commonly used method of installation. There are many other installers out there (WISE, InstallShield, Nullsoft, etc.), not to mention that some programs make their own installers and even more do not have an installer at all.

      Linux has Red Hat Packages, Debian packages, and a variety of other methods.

      Neither Windows nor Linux require an installer to be used. If the software you want doesn't have a one-click installer, complain to the company that makes the software, not the OS.

    31. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by tpholland · · Score: 1

      Every single Linux distro does implement the same.

      You install your package from your distro's repo, using the package manager that was conveniently provided with your distro.

      The fact that the package managers vary a bit from distro to distro is a non-issue. You'll only be using the one: just ignore the rest!

    32. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1, Troll

      Bologna. I support 40 users locally on windows XP and while most of them are computer retarded they still figure out how to install things they need like flash or the activex control for the title website they use.

    33. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity how the fuck would anyone who supports windows know what the fuck a repository is in Linux?

    34. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's you that doesn't get it. Linux is being used by people. By suggesting something such as 1-click installs you prove that you are stuck on the windows way of doing things. In that case use windows and avoid posting about linux. The linux way of installs is superior. Repositories and mirrors make installs very simple.

    35. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Troll

      And why hasn't a GUI been written to edit the config file so the settings can be edited in a logical way instead of a serial (search through the whole damned config file for one setting) kind of way?

    36. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You can argue semantics with me all day but you get the point. There needs to be a unified method of installing shit on Linux and it needs to be simple.

    37. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Troll

      But all the install methods work on Windows where as one may work on one linux distro and not another. This is the problem.

    38. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. You pop the game CD in the drive and install packages from the CD repository. If you don't already have the dependencies then your package manager downloads them. You are given the option to subscribe to an online repository that will send you updates and patches. Look in Applications|Games for your launcher.

      That's the dream, anyway. It's a security hazard to trust 3rd party repositories on a whim, and DRM might be an issue too.

    39. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, it's not a non-issue. It is THE issue. Linux users are almost as smug as Apple users in this regard. Not helpful, just belittling. Until this process is uniform it will never be the YEAR OF THE LINUX DESKTOP.

    40. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is "getting" you because you're just plain wrong!

      To say that all Linux distributions should do things the same way is like saying that Windows and Mac and Linux should all run the same way since they share the same hardware architecture.

      Linux is a kernel, nothing more nothing less. The distribution *is* what people refer to as the operating system. Debian and SuSE and Slackware are all basically different operating systems. Calling them Linux is a generalization, just as is calling everything that has a CPU, monitor and keyboard a computer.

    41. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by TheBig1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      When penguins migrate to Hell for the cooler climate. So, about 2012 with global warming....
    42. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree with that, but I'll also add that not all Windows applications have standardized on the Windows Installer yet either. Some still use custome Setup.EXE's or Winzip packages.

      It's also not semantics. If you don't know the difference between a kernel and an application then you are probably on the wrong forum :-)

    43. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Well then the Article Title is wrong. Why don't people correct that everytime it's posted then? Or complain that linux.com is an ambiguous domain name since it serves many distros with applications.

    44. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      Webmin/Virtualmin, anyone?

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    45. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Ummm, by doing the bare minimum of online research? Like, I don't know, Googling "Linux repository"? Maybe adding a distro name or two that he may have heard? Like say, Red Hat or Ubuntu?

      Seriously, no geek can afford to become so specialized that he doesn't know how to find the answers to such basic questions. No geek can afford to become so complacent that he thinks his work world will never change. Any geek who's been in the workforce for more than 10 years should have been exposed to a very wide variety of stuff. Any geek with that much experience who only knows about one system is a geek destined to eventually be out of a job.

    46. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Would you count Mandriva 2006 as semi-modern?

    47. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      Please don't say "Linux". Say "Fedora". The repository is a collection for an Operating System. Linux is the kernel; Fedora is the Operating System.

      Now, you find out what it is by asking, jmorris answers. Now you know. Or, you guess (I ran across an "msi" or something file for a Windows programs recently that I wanted to use with WINE; same problem, go figure). That's the beauty of the 'net and google.

      docs.fedoraproject.org, pick "Managing Software with Yum", which describes repositories. Then google "fedora repository" gets you to rpm.liva.org, which has a clickable link that installs the repository into the installer. And (as a favor), type in "yum install yumex" as root to install an extended installer.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    48. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I know this. That's why I know anything about Ubuntu because I just installed it last month. (It took three weeks to get it to run on Virtual PC 2007). I'm open to learning. I just was pointing out that I didn't know what it meant when I read it and most USERS will not research anything because they don't see it as part of their job.

    49. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Duke Nukem Forever and putting things that clearly do not belong in a kernel in the Linux kernel will happen right around the same time.

      Like a web server?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    50. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Because it's a _useful_ generalization.

      Besides, you continue to insist that this differentiation of package management methods and software is some sort of huge problem. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

      I've installed Red Hat, Mandrake, Mandriva, Suse, Gentoo, Debian, Knoppix, and Ubuntu over the past 15 years. Package management has steadily improved over that time to the point where I no longer worry about whether or not I'll find the package that I want in the "official" repository. If it's a popular package, it'll already have the appropriate .rpm, .deb, and .tar.gz downloads available. A little configuration work, and boom! Not only do I get a simple, easy to install package managed for me, I automatically get updates! Try THAT with most Windows apps!

      It's. Just. Not. A. Problem.

    51. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Juippi · · Score: 1

      You people are not getting me at all. The point is it has to be something that EVERY SINGLE LINUX DISTRO IMPLEMENTS THE SAME. There's no way this will ever happen, since there's simply no way to prevent someone from implementing an incompatible install mechanism if he thinks the current one doesn't satisfy his needs, and no way to prevent other people from using it if they want to. You can't prevent Apple from selling OS X either, even though it's incompatible with Windows

      when people use Linux they use Linux This is what should change IMO. If two Linux distributions use different desktop environments and have significant differences in look and feel, software installation mechanisms and hardware support (since much of it depends on userland stuff), then from a non-technical user's perspective they may well be not just different "flavors" of Linux, but different operating systems, and it could be more useful to market them as such. Just because two systems use the same kernel doesn't mean that they are at all similar from the end-users perspective. You're never going to get a consistent experience by just using "Linux", but you may well have better luck with e.g. SuSE or Ubuntu.
    52. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      ..where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a whole program including notifying and automatically installing programs it is dependent upon.


      Heck I really wish Windows could have this. Instead, every program has its own wizard with selections that must be maticulously considered lest you install some unwanted spyware or have your preferences hijacked. You also have to beware of any companion applications that may try to subvert your preferences and file associations. Plus if you back up your application, you have to rely on the fact that there are no time, date, or version constraints that try and prevent you from installing it at a later date or on another OS or with different software installed on your PC.

      And after all that hassle, the software probably doesn't even work with automatic updates, or has its own update mechanism with its own preferences. The uninstall may or may not remove all files, especially since on opening the program you find out you are missing some DLLs and have to hunt them down all over the web, because they didn't automatically install.
    53. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by alexgieg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you're looking into this from the wrong perspective. The thing is, thinking about Linux as if it were one operating system is simply wrong. If you think on that "Linux" thing as being just some inner piece of software used by operating systems (plural), then things become much easier to understand:

      You have an OS called Windows XP. You have another OS called Ubuntu. Then another OS called MacOS X. Then another called Fedora. Then another called FreeBSD. And so on and so forth. All of them different OSes.

      So, if your OS is, say, Ubuntu, and you want to run some piece of software, say, Firefox, you shouldn't ask whether it has a version that runs "in Linux", but whether it has a version that runs in Ubuntu. Because your OS isn't "Linux", it's Ubuntu.

      And then it becomes easy. If it supports Ubuntu, you'll find in the manufacturer's website a file you can download, double click, and it'll be installed. Just like its Windows XP package. Or its MacOS X package.

      If you think this is crazy, think again. MacOS X is also, roughly speaking, a distribution of NextStep. Many of the core components are the same, or very similar ones. But you won't find people complaining because a software available for MacOS X doesn't run unmodified in NextStep, or vice-versa. If it's available for both OSes, you just download the correct installer for the one you're using, and install it. If it is available only for one of them, you might get it working on the other, but it won't be a trivial thing to do.

      And yes, the same goes for Windows. Suppose I'm still running Windows 95. A lot of software installer with those beautiful ".exe" extensions won't run. If the manufacturer doesn't provide a Windows 95 compatible version, I'm screwed. Is this something I should blame on Windows 95? No. So, why should I complain if I find a software that is labeled "for Slackware" when I'm not running Slackware? No reason at all.

      Search for softwares compatible with your OS, and they'll be easy to install. Double-click easy in fact. Try to install something that wasn't designed for you, and it's anyone's guess whether you'll succeed or not. In any case, it's not the fault of either the software you downloaded, or of the OS you're running. It's you who are trying to do things you're not supposed to.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    54. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      OK. However, if the subject is users, they generally will be looking to you to explain how to install something when they can't figure it out, right? So, once you know, spread the word. No big deal. :)

      Look, we're not talking about the vast majority here, right? We're talking about that small handful of people who can be the bane of our existence or an incredible boon. All we need to do is steer them in the right direction. The rest of the staff will use whatever you put in front of them.

    55. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      That's fine but your friends don't follow your convention of calling different distributions different operating systems. Instead they talk about the year of Linux on the Desktop instead of the year of Ubuntu on the Desktop or the year of Fedora on the desktop. It's all this confusion of terminology that serves to confuse the end user even more when they think about jumping on board with a new operating system.

    56. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by TwinkieStix · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows is a class of operating systems - Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows Mobile. Linux is a class of operating systems - Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, etc.

      Each distribution of Linux aims to achieve a different goal just as Windows Mobile and Windows Vista are inconsistent and aim to achieve a different goal. You can't install just any Windows Vista package on your Windows Mobile phone can you?

      Linux is not inconsistent. Linux distributions are inconsistent, but that's ok. What we really need to do is stop calling our distributions "Linux" and start calling them by their proper names (Ubuntu, Slackware, Debian). Then the myth of inconsistencies will start to fall away.

    57. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why hasn't a GUI been written to edit the config file so the settings can be edited in a logical way instead of a serial (search through the whole damned config file for one setting) kind of way? Because Microsoft Simian Serfs are not the target market for it?
    58. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Package managment systems just compound the problem. It makes you reliant on your distribution's maintainers for access to a program rather than a program's maintainer. If you want to update MarksGreatApp when he released version 5 next Tuesday (version 4 sucked), then you need to wait on Ubuntu (or your choice) to package it and test it. That could take another couple months. And that's assuming that MarksGreatApp warrants their attention in the first place, or that your distribution is a quickly updated one.

      Then, if you're on the command line, there's the question of what it's named.

      apt-get install marksgreatapp

      Nope, package not found.

      apt-get install marks_great_app

      Nope, package not found.

      20 minutes later with a lot of digging and Googling I find out it's

      apt-get install marksgreatapp.org-ubuntu8

      Or, my friend Dennis doesn't use that distro, so now instead of apt-get I have to use yum. Or on my friend Frank's machine I have to use emerge.

      And if I DO want to get and compile the latest from the author's website, I can, but I'm going to screw up the package manager's dependency/version database if I do. If I'm lucky the program author will release an actual package file for the program. Of course then, instead of apt-get and yum I have to learn syntax to different commands dpkg and rpm. And with either (but rpm particularly) I can be plunged into the 7th level of dependency hell.

      Mac and Windows just work so much easier for installing software. Go to author's site, download 1 file, and double click. At this point if it's Windows you have a few dialogs to click through, or if Mac, even easier, just drag the application to your Applications folder. Always the latest, always the same, always easy.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    59. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the linux system of having software in repositories is superior to the Windows system, where you have many different kinds of installers, whose usefulness is very dependent on how good the third party developer is. The problem is a matter of unfamiliarity, in that if you're not used to doing something a certain way, you think it's harder, or wrong. I think that an untrained user, coming to Windows installation procedures and to Linux package repositories with no experience at all, would prefer the repository experience.

      Linux fails for the common user when the installations begin with "extract files from the tarball..." which is rarer, but still common enough to trip up an average user.

      Worse than that is hardware support. Every time I try to install a particular flavour of Linux on one of my computers, there is some fairly important piece of hardware that didn't work. It used to be modems, then sound cards, printers, and these days it's wireless network cards. Even moderately skillful users often don't have the time to deal with the byzantine fixes required to get hardware going.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    60. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well there is your problem. Stop trying to install Bonzi Buddy on your windows machine.

    61. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but administering Apache with emacs isn't just "better". Its slower and less structured and quite frankly antiquated.

    62. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by brunascle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its slower
      that's completely dependent on how you use it.

      for example, i just had to add a mime type into IIS. it took about a minute, because i had to remote login through RDP. waiting for that to connect, then waiting for a usable desktop, then clicking through the drill downs, then switching to the right tab, then clicking some buttons took about 99% of that time.

      if there was a text config file i could easily open it in notepad from my own desktop (because i would have it's drive mapped), ctrl-f for "mime" or something, and that would be it.

      speed is actually one of the biggest advantages of command lines and text config files, once you're familiar with them. with a GUI, there's an absolute minimum amount of time a change will take. with command lines and config files, it's almost entirely dependent on how fast you can type.
    63. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      Alright, I'll put the convention issue into perspective: Linux and Windows are the methodology, with Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. as Linux operating systems and 2000, XP, and Vista as Windows operating systems (ignoring for now that the Linux kernel and distro versions increment independently, and the various distros are concurrent rather than incremental like the Windows camp). Even on the Windows side you can't just say "if it runs on Windows it runs on Windows". I am using Windows 2000 at work, as such, I cannot install Visual Studio 2008 or Silverlight as those do not install on Win2K. Going back before Windows 2000 we had a complete split between Windows 98 and Windows NT 4.0. There were many things that could not run on NT 4.0 because support for DirectX was limited.

      I will agree that the "Linux Desktop Experience" needs to have a good deal of work done to ensure a common ground for how things should be done. Software developers need to be consistent in how they provide their software, and they should not assume that something will be available on the platform. Even on Windows, with the exception of MSI files, installers include themselves in the executable code. Even with MSI files, there is typically a setup.exe that ensures that Windows Installer is available at a minimum version.

    64. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      This is how the whole malware crisis started. People double clicking on a single exe file and having their computer rootkitted because every damned executable in the whole world needs to be able to overwrite any file in the entire system without so much as a warning dialog.

      At least with the Debian package system software gets into a system in a predictable fashion instead of the absolute free-for-all that is Windows.

    65. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      People will never use Linux if the experience keeps being inconsistent. I don't see why not... they use Windows even though the experience between distros keeps being inconsistent.

      Then comes installation processes... some apps can be dragged into place and double clicked to run. Some of them need an installer. The installer may or may not put an icon in the quickstart bar, on the desktop, in the start menu, in the programs menu, and may or may not also install other software that you don't want/need. Also, the software may or may not depend on other software (such as .Net libraries, DLLs, etc.) being pre-installed to work correctly.

      Once you've installed it all, you might find that it doesn't play nicely with some other piece of software you have installed, or you might find that it won't install at all because you have something else installed (beta software from MSDN really messes up installs of release products).

      Then comes UNinstalling... you never can remove all the bits and pieces a Windows installer injects into the OS.

      Compared to this, OS X installs usually comprise of downloading a DMG that auto-mounts and has an app inside you drag to your Applications folder. Some that have multiple parts include an installer app to add those parts.

      Compared to these, Linux involves you browsing the complete software repository and selecting the apps you want, then clicking install. The package manager takes care of the rest for you. It has the update service built-in (unlike Windows and OS X systems, where updating is even more of a mess than (un)installing), so you always know you've got the latest fully tested versions of your software.

      Plus, you still generally have the option of doing a simple make;make install and tweak the source code if something doesn't work quite right for you.

      Remember: grouping "linux" as one OS is like grouping "windows" as one OS -- Win3.1.1 is not the same experience as Vista or Server2xxx.
    66. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Neeperando · · Score: 1

      A little configuration work, and boom! Not only do I get a simple, easy to install package managed for me, I automatically get updates! Try THAT with most Windows apps! It's. Just. Not. A. Problem. What you call "a little configuration work", most people call "hours and hours of reading message boards, trying and failing to edit the config file in just the right way", I call it "wasting a Saturday".

      I understand that most people on Slashdot are both knowledgeable and patient when it comes to Linux, and I also understand that the OP doesn't fully understand a lot of these distinctions, but the spirit of what he's saying is still true. Here's my typically linux experience:

      apt-get install package
      Could not find package
      What's the command to see the available packages?
      10 minutes later:
      apt-get install package-0.23.819.01
      package-0.23.819.01 depends on pacakgeAv2 and packageBv2.
      OK, install those.
      sorry, packageAv2 does not run unless you have packageBv1.

      Now I'm stuck, now back to the message boards. Someone says, "Here's the fix, it's easy". Four hours later I've got my program installed and working, but two other things that worked before are now broken.

      I try to go to Linux every couple years, but always with the same result: I spend hours and hours making configuration tweaks so I get it doing 85% of the things I could do on Windows in five minutes.

      Admittedly, things have gotten better. Synaptic makes it much easier to install one package at a time. The last time I used it to update my Mythbuntu box, I only needed to spend about an hour fixing all the things that broke.

      Maybe the answer to this is that Windows is the OS for me, but my understanding is that most of us would like it if Linux became popular. However, I am fairly intelligent (note I didn't say knowledgeable) and I can't figure Linux out. If the OP is trying to say that Linux needs to be a lot easier before the masses can use it, then he's absolutely right.

      --
      Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
    67. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Its slower
      for example, i just had to add a mime type into IIS. it took about a minute, because i had to remote login through RDP. waiting for that to connect, then waiting for a usable desktop, then clicking through the drill downs, then switching to the right tab, then clicking some buttons took about 99% of that time. if there was a text config file i could easily open it in notepad from my own desktop (because i would have it's drive mapped), ctrl-f for "mime" or something, and that would be it. There is a text config file, its called the Metabase and its XML based. Three solutions to your problem:

      1. Turn on Metabase editing on the fly, add your mime type via whatever text editor you wish and IIS should pick it up within 5 minutes.
      2. Add it to the metabase and then cycle the IIS service.
      3. Use WSH or similar to add it programmatically.
    68. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      This would be great if everything was available with a .deb file which it is not.

      It's true that not everything is available, but if the objection is that "normal" people aren't able to install things that aren't convenient .debs, you have to ask how if "normal" people want these less common applications. The most common stuff, the stuff that people actually want, is available as .debs. If I can get convenient debs of gcc (and I can), then anything "normal" should be available.
      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    69. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "While normally you shouldn't bring user-space processes to kernel space, there are times when this may be a good choice, either for performance or for size. The former reason is what led to kHTTPd, the latter may be relevant to avoid libc altogether in small embedded systems devoted to a single task."
      I guess you cannot read.
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    70. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by ArtDent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then, if you're on the command line, there's the question of what it's named. The question is easily asked and answered:

      apt-cache search marks great app

      Before you complain about not knowing the magic incantations, remember you're the one who raised the command line. It's easier to search for packages in the GUI tools that all modern distributions provide.

      Mac and Windows just work so much easier for installing software. Go to author's site, download 1 file, and double click. At this point if it's Windows you have a few dialogs to click through, or if Mac, even easier, just drag the application to your Applications folder. Always the latest, always the same, always easy. I believe all you've said is the obvious: if the author provides a packaged version of their software for your operating system, it is very easy to install it. That is true for Windows, Mac OS, and every modern Linux distribution. Fortunately, distributions like Debian and Fedora package thousands of pieces of software themselves, without requiring any effort from the original authors.

      If a piece of software is overlooked by a distribution and the author wants to package it themselves, they can. They can provide a package and it will be just as easy to install as any other package on the targeted distribution. If they provide a repository, then it will be automatically kept up to date along with the rest of the system.

      The reality is that package management on modern Linux distributions is far superior to Windows and Mac OS.
    71. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by brunascle · · Score: 1

      well how bout that, it works! thanks.

    72. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Allow me to userify it for you:

      1) Click on Add/Remove Applications
      2) Browse by category (Education, Games, Graphics, Internet, Office, Etc), search by keyword, search by description
      3) Select the programs you want to install.
      4) Unselect any programs you want to uninstall.
      5) Click Apply

      You don't have to Google to find the vendor website, you don't have to decide which of a dozen installers applies to you, you don't even have to know how to drag files to your Applications folder.

      You also don't have to worry about software updates, you'll get a periodic notification with a digest of the available updates, unselect any you don't want to update if any, click update.

      None of these programs leaves a little resident updater script eating 100mb of ram and 5% of your cpu. You don't have to worry about any of these programs being virus, spyware, or other malware. You don't have to worry about these programs requiring activation, collecting personal information, or costing any money.

      This is better than anything Windows or OSX offers. It's easier, friendlier, and safer.

    73. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I guess you cannot read.

      I guess you cannot appreciate humor.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    74. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I just checked the Synaptics Package Manager and Apache isn't included in the Hardy Heron release of Ubuntu. Unless I'm missing something.

    75. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      If only make was simple. I've been trying to compile VirtualBox on my XP machine for a month.

    76. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Note that doing it this way doesn't list all the applications I want. However using the Synaptics Package Manager does. So why are there two methods to do the same thing in Ubuntu? It's confusing and Ubuntu is supposed to be user friendly. I didn't initially know about Synaptics because it is called Synaptics and to mean that means touchpad since the company by the same name makes touchpads.

    77. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You mean like you can do with Debian or Ubuntu TODAY?

      The double clicking is the easy part actually.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    78. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by sammyF70 · · Score: 1

      It's not on the ISO, but it's definitely in the repositories. The package is called "Apache2", version 2.2.8-1 So I guess you are indeed missing something.

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    79. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If you are a cretin and the company in question likes to cater to cretins then
      there will be a shiny happy GUI installer. This has been the case in Linux since
      the earliest days of Redhat (like version 3.03).

      Apache is a poor example. It's not marketed towards cretins. It's developers
      don't pander to cretins.

      Stuff like games or office suites or databases are another matter though.

      The "burden" of packaging doesn't seem to be so bad in practice.

      If you had some granny-ware in mind your point might have some relevance.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    80. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Mebbe they didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday and remember the old ftp shareware archives.

      Perhaps they understand words in natural languages conceptually and can piece together what a repository for an operating system might be.

      Not every NT is a total dolt.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    81. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Dude, I know it's in the repository. My point is that it wasn't installed. I didn't miss it but in the Add/Remove Panel it's not there. In Synaptics it is. I didn't know to use Synaptics because it's not intuitive. Synaptics is a company and they make touchpads. A better name could have been choosen. Oh, I don't know. Like Add/Remove and then get rid of that monstrosity that sits in the Add/Remove spot now and replace it with what the Synaptics Package Manager is.

    82. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by brunascle · · Score: 1

      i believe there's 2 because Add/Remove is supposed to be the user-friendly, simple and easy one, and Synaptics is the one that gives you all the gory details. Add/Remove generally only has GUI based, desktop-oriented stuff. You wont find libraries in there, and you probably wont find anything server related, like Apache.

    83. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a non-issue.

      Unfortunately we've conditioned users against treating computing tasks abstractly.
      Tasks aren't independent of tools any more. They are focused on whatever tool you
      happen to use. So if most users are confronted with a competitive tool they are lost.

      Find the package manager.
      Run it.
      Follow the menus.

      That should work for any computer literate person regardless of OS.

      Nevermind Linux to Linux. It should hold true between Linux, Commercial
      Unixen, Windows and MacOS.

      People have gotten so fixated on the little minutia that they don't think
      about what they're doing anymore.

      Uniformity is for MS-DOS and VMS.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    84. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > apt-get install package
      > Could not find package
      > What's the command to see the available packages?

      Never heard of wildcards, eh?

      You don't need to use a "special purpose search tool".

      Just use some wildcards in your command and see what comes up.

      This works as a general heuristic for CLI's in general.

      If you find your app, it will handle the dependencies itself and
      warn you upfront if you have a conflict.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    85. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Gah, Saying that Linux has a problem on Slashdot is like going into a Church and saying God doesn't exist.

      The corollary is that saying that God does exist on Slashdot is like walking into a Church and saying God doesn't exist.

    86. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Your response misses the point completely. It's about usability. You know how deep you just got? People are going to throw their hands in the air and give up way before they get to that point.

    87. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by theeddie55 · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity how the fuck would anyone who supports windows know what the fuck a repository is in Linux?
      As someone who supports windows, I find that sometimes the easiest way to fix a windows installation is to plug the hard drive into my linux laptop.
    88. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by nahdude812 · · Score: 2, Informative

      One is a user-friendly version, one is a developer-friendly version. Complaining about Synaptic Package Manager is like complaining about Registry Editor or Library entries on OSX.

      A number of the developer packages (like Apache) aren't available in Add/Remove Applications because there's no way to provide a default install which would satisfy even most users, nor are normal users going to want a local web server. Putting them in here would needlessly clutter up this interface with packages only advanced users would be interested in - thus there's a clear need for separate package managers (though I'd buy the argument that it would be useful to put an "Advanced" button in the Add/Remove Applications which drops you into Synaptic, and vice-versa with a "Simple" button).

      Even still, "apt-get install apache2" (or selecting apache2 from Synaptic) is still an order of magnitude easier than Windows or OSX.

      I agree that collision between "Synaptic Package Manager" and "Synaptics Touchpad Driver" is unfortunate. At least they qualify the menu entry fully.

    89. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      Even with MSI files, there is typically a setup.exe that ensures that Windows Installer is available at a minimum version.

      Exactly. Some installers work better than others, and even MSI, the only one actually bundled with windows has to be periodically updated.

      The situation in Linux is comparable. You have Yum, Apt-Get, whatever package manager slackware uses, and Portage, just to name a few.

      Yum is developed for fedora, but you can install yum on a debian system and use rpms. Similarly, Apt-get is designed for debian and derivatives, but you can still install apt-get on a redhat system to use .debs.

      Gentoo offers instructions on installing portage on a slew of different distros.

      You can use whatever installer method you want, but you have to install it first. Just like the Microsoft Software Installer version whatever.

    90. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Or you could go to reinstall windows and do a repair when it asks you. It always works. Unless the HD fails or there is some sort of rootkit on the machine in which case a format is in order.

    91. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by setagllib · · Score: 1

      Back at the time, this meant Linux could serve static files over HTTP with a tiny tiny fraction of the resources required for Windows or even BSD to do the same. So for that little kernel option and configuration, you could save 90% of your static file server resources.

      Now Linux and user-space software alike have been optimized to the point that khttpd's performance is barely better and sometimes worse, so it is no longer practical.

      I used to be a userland purist, but let's face it, back when all we had were 133Mhz Pentiums, fast is good. Microkernels never took off for the same reasons - elegant and maintainable are great but sometimes you just need fast. Otherwise we'd have kernels written in Python.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    92. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Why limit yourself to the old painful way Microsoft and Apple do things when technology is being innovated over here in Linux/UNIX land?

      The only things package managers are "innovating" are workarounds for the self-created problem of dependency hell - and all it takes is one missing dependency, or one broken package, for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.

    93. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by OlPete · · Score: 1

      Dude, I know it's in the repository. My point is that it wasn't installed. I didn't miss it but in the Add/Remove Panel it's not there. In Synaptics it is. I didn't know to use Synaptics because it's not intuitive. You work in IT, and you're really going to make that argument? Really? Really!?
    94. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It always works. Does it now? Because six months ago I had a Windows machine with U320 disks hooked up to a fast wide controller. I installed a faster controller and its drivers and then moved the disks and...it wouldn't boot. Didn't even get to NTLDR. Repair install did nothing. Clean install onto a spare disk worked fine. It clearly doesn't "always work."
    95. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I used to be a userland purist, but let's face it, back when all we had were 133Mhz Pentiums, fast is good.

      I was a junior sysadmin at an ISP in the mid-late 90's, and I remember those days well. :-) We still used Apache for everything, though. We worked around some performance issues by running multiple instances, bound to different IPs, on the same machine. One would host heavyweight processes, like mod_perl, CGI scripts, and PHP 2. Another had an extremely minimal config and it did nothing but serve static files.

      By the way, that's still a pretty reasonable setup for performance-crunched machines. Why spend your resources serving favicon.ico from the same fat processes as Wordpress? The same logic holds for moving image files out of Zope and into a regular filesystem.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    96. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Then you're doing something wrong. Installing and configuring a modern Linux distribution for standard desktop use is far easier than it is in Windows. Pop in a xbuntu LiveCD (or Mepis, Knoppix, or what have you), boot your PC, and accept the defaults. You really, Really, REALLY have to try hard to find modern hardware that isn't covered any longer.

      That's not just me saying that, that is what I see over and over and over by every trade journalist whose boss has told them to check out "this Linux thing." Yeah, they bitch about apps not working the way that they want. OK, valid point. Different OS, different pool of apps. Some better, some worse. Mostly they just bitch about different until someone points out an easier way of doing things than what they found on their own.

      And yeah, there are still problem areas when it comes to hardware support. But you know what? Those problem areas are shrinking by the week. Wireless? Used to be undoable 5 years ago except by gurus. Now? Ubuntu handles things flawlessly. Video cards? FAR better situation now than even a couple of years ago.

      Tell you what: You want to check out Linux and are tired of not being able to do a simple install? Don't install. Buy yourself an Asus motherboard next time! (And that means, ladies and gentlemen, that we're back on topic! lol)

    97. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by theeddie55 · · Score: 1

      didn't work last time i tried it, and that was just a problem with a mouse driver.

    98. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Yes, really. Get over yourself.

    99. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      If you make changes to the hardware that break the OS maybe you should change the hardware back to the way it was? Just a thought.

    100. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I mean I like how Ubuntu can install things from the add/remove panel but what if I want Apache on my installation and they don't offer it?


      In declining order of preference (not that Apache is a good example, what Linux distro doesn't have Apache in its official repo?):

      (1) You find a third-party repository that has packages for it, and add that to the repository list for your system package manager, and install from there (you get an install that's easier than most Windows GUI installs, plus you get updates as they are posted to the repo);
      (2) You find a package (.deb for Ubuntu or other debian-based systems, RPM for Redhat, etc.) for your OS, and install from that (this is usually easier than a Windows installer, but no updates unless the application has its own updating functionality);
      (3) You download the source packages and build instructions from the project's homepage and build the software yourself, usually, this is fairly straightforward, though you have to manage dependencies manually, and you're still in a better position than on Windows, since at least the tools you need to build are almost certainly Free, free, and usually in the standard repositories for your OS [probably the base install, too].

      I'm sure the server Distro has it but what of it.


      If the "server distro" has it, its in the Ubuntu standard repositories, and you can just click on it in your package manager and install it. The different versions of Ubuntu (desktop vs. server, ubuntu vs. xubuntu vs. kubuntu vs. edubuntu) are all most remixes of material that is in the standard repositories once you install any of them, you can start from any and end up with any of the features of any of the others, essentially, just by adding packages that are in the standard repositories.
    101. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      1) My original point was usability. That isn't intuitive even though it is the best answer.

      2) I don't think it exists for Apache but ya

      3) This is what I tried first actually because the other two were not intuitive. I gave up after two hours of running into dependency issues.

      I don't see how number 3 is better then windows from a usability standpoint. I finally got Apache installed but now I have to configure it and it's not intuitive either. All I really want it to run one website and be able to make all my configuration changes in one place. Why is that so much to ask for?

    102. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      first off, i dont know why the parent is modded troll. looks like a sour grapes mod.

      second, yes the average computer retard can install flash and activex stuff, but only for a few reasons:
      a. "the internet" pops up a message saying 'click me to install something' and they do.
      b. they 'need' youtube and are determined to make it work.

      -on my nokia 810, if i click a .deb file in a browser, it opens the package manager and begins installation. it CAN be this easy in GNU/Linux. maybe other distros do this too, i dont know because i use plain-old debian unstable.
      -if people were forced to use GNU/Linux then they WOULD find their distro's respective package manager and install what they 'needed'.

    103. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support for an install mechanism where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a whole program including notifying and automatically installing programs it is dependent upon. Already done. Its called package management. Not in the kernel, but it doesn't need to be.
      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    104. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support for an install mechanism where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a whole program including notifying and automatically installing programs it is dependent upon.


      You are seriously mired in Windows-think ... a package manager is a far better user exeprience for installing software than clicking on files.

      http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/installingsoftware

      But, even if you insist on doing software installation by searching the web with your browser and eventually finding a link to click on (which could after all be a trojan) ... then even there Linux has you covered:

      https://launchpad.net/gdebi

      http://web.mornfall.net/adept_installer.html
      (adept has a mode where it can be invoked by clicking on a link in your browser)
    105. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You have missed that it is called "httpd". A fairly common mistake that most people make when they first hear of Apache. Unfortunately years of experience with MSDOS and derivatives does not translate very well to unix based systems. The confusion with the terminology above is a good example: "Linux Kernel has native support for an install mechanism where by I can double click on a single file" is really giving credit to a system that is very far removed from the user interface and the mouse click.

    106. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only things package managers are "innovating" are workarounds for the self-created problem of dependency hell - and all it takes is one missing dependency, or one broken package, for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.


      Pffft. Utter rubbish.

      Installing software on a recent Linux distribution is dead easy and simple to do:

      http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/installingsoftware

      It is streets ahead of anything on Windows.

      In over five years of using package managers and Linux packages and repositories, I have only once ever had an application fail to install correctly ... and even then the repository maintainers had fixed the issue by the very next day.

      So much for the "pack of cards" theory. Try again, troll.
    107. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by sammyF70 · · Score: 1

      Dude, you wrote "I just checked the Synaptics Package Manager and Apache isn't included in the Hardy Heron release of Ubuntu.", which, to my understanding, means "it's not in Synaptics" and not "I just installed a Desktop Linux Distro that's meant for the average clueless John Doe user's mom and it didn't install an HTTP server! OMGWTFBBQ!".

      In other news, there is a SERVER version of Ubuntu. Never used it, but I'd bet a complete collection of American Idol Seasons DVDs that Apache2 is both

      • * on the ISO
      • * installed automatically
      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    108. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
      I didn't know to use Synaptics because it's not intuitive.

      Search (like google)... BTW.. "apache", "server", and "web" all included apache2 in results.
      Mark for install... Um lets see you check the box, or right click and "mark"
      Apply... Applies the changes (install or UNINSTALL) that you are making.

      What kind of intuitiveness do you require ??? sheesh...
      Exactly how would you make it simple enough FOR YOU ?

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    109. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately things are not always that simple.

      DVB drivers - some of the cards require compiling from (latest) source.
      Webcam - exactly the same.
      WLAN - the same.
      NVidia - OK, no sources but the end effect is the same.

      The problem: after that every single update to the kernel is going to break your computer badly. And that happens several times a year.

      Compare this to OSX/OpenSolaris/Windows/...

      The situation is extremely unlikely to change in the near future.

    110. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Great, now all Linux has to do is come up with a way of installing nvidia drivers or modem firmware without having to go to the command line and type cryptic commands.

      Odd how an old shitty Mandriva CD of mine came with modem drivers, whilst the latest Ubuntu didn't, meaning it was effectively a doorstop, as the only way to get the drivers was online, through my non-working modem. Maybe Linux is going backwards.

    111. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Well if I find out there is something I don't know, like a Linux repository, I don't run around blaming everyone else for not informing me better. I go out and try to find out about it myself.

    112. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by ryszard99 · · Score: 1

      The problem: after that every single update to the kernel is going to break your computer badly. And that happens several times a year.

      this is not my experience with ubuntu. if i have compiled my stuff manually (ala the oldish intel wifi drivers) a kernel upgrade doesnt break my system badly, at least in my measurement of badly. i just re-compiled the driver, no worries.

      IMO badly means files missing, corrupted, unable to compile, unable to mount (altho, if you're unable to mount, thats a sad, sad day)

      YMOBMD - Your Measurement Of Badly May Differ

      --
      -- $_='ab-bc ratvarre';tr"'a-z'"'n-za-m'";print
    113. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by houghi · · Score: 1

      So if the distribution does not offer it, then you must look for an alternative place. Just like with e.g. Windows, who offer almost next to nothing that yu can install that way.

      e.g. you have openSUSE 10.3 and you want to install MPlayer so you can watch pr0n? Just click here wich you can find via http://packages.opensuse-community.org/

      Not only does it install the software, it will add the reporsitory as well, so you can select other software as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    114. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by houghi · · Score: 1

      If a piece of software is overlooked by a distribution and the author wants to package it themselves, they can. They can provide a package and it will be just as easy to install as any other package on the targeted distribution. If they provide a repository, then it will be automatically kept up to date along with the rest of the system.
      And if nobody is willing and you have the knowledge, you can even make your own repository on e.g. https://build.opensuse.org/
      Not only SUSE and openSUSE, but also RedHat, *buntu, Mandriva, debian, CentOS
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    115. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      It's all this confusion of terminology that serves to confuse the end user even more when they think about jumping on board with a new operating system.
      I agree, but you have to consider that it's somewhat of a stretch to think a certain technological field (the whole of it), such as that of the Unix clones, must adopt the terminology used by another, when they developed independently and, worse, the one using the "wrong" terminology came first.

      Most Linux advocates have an engineering mindset. They prefer to stick to the precise definitions of technical terms rather than adopting the looser versions adopted by PR departments. An "operating system", in the proper, classical meaning of the expression, are the pieces of software that directly controls the hardware itself, what usually means the kernel and very few additional pieces of software (sometimes just the kernel). Whatever else you run on top of it, such as a graphical windowing system, isn't the OS properly, but something else. Thus, this something else they prefer to call a "distribution", as it's in fact just an easy way to distributed pre-compiled software packages around, one of them being a kernel.

      On the other hand, manufacturers of distributions that target common people, such as Canonical (who makes Ubuntu), are aware that sticking to this strongly technical approach isn't going to help adoption among people who use these words in a much loosely way. So, in the material they use to present Ubuntu to people who usually have no idea whatsoever that something other than Windows can run in a computer, Canonical calls Ubuntu an operating system, not a distribution, and they don't emphasize the fact it runs on top of Linux, preferring to leave this information either in the small print, or even completely out. See, for example, here, here and here: in neither of these pages the word "Linux" even appears. You'll find it in the main page, but only once, without emphasis and in a matter of fact way.

      I myself have also adopted this approach. When talking about what OS I use by non-technically minded people, I don't say "Linux", I say "Ubuntu". And some even answer: "Ah! I've heard about that."

      As you see, there's hope. :)
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    116. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by agbinfo · · Score: 1

      ... Contrast with the Windows/Mac world. Each 3rd party application, game, utility, etc. has to have it's own mechanism to find out if it has been updated, code to bug you to update, etc. ... Hopefully, this will change in Windows as well. There have been a few failed attempts before however, there's Appupdater that seems to be going in the right direction. Also Apache is using Maven2 and Ivy to "document" their projects. This should make it easier to install these projects (on any platform).

      Disclaimer: I've had to look these things up lately but I'm no expert on the subject.

    117. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "I guess you cannot appreciate humor."
      Sure I can. With a Slashdot ID of 3352 you certainly know that there are lots of people who would make such a comment seriously. Some time ago, they invented something we now call the emoticon. You should not be afraid of them. They are your friend ;-)
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    118. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      YMOBMD "I cannot leave such a computer to a lay person".
    119. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      In general, I don't like emoticons. What Shakespeare did not write:

      To be, or not to be. That is the question. :-(

      I'm clearly not The Bard, but it's a good goal to shoot for.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    120. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      This was supposed to be funny. Some people are just too serious all the time.

    121. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know this is true. Lots of responders have pointed out that they set up friends on Ubuntu or Debian and show them around and that the friends like it. That's great and all but that's not my point. I know Linux distros are useful and can do anything a Windows install can. The point is that when a person has to install it and set it up themselves and then orient themselves (like I did) they get lost. Ubuntu has a little intro thingy but I wish they put the info on the package manager and the who different paradigm on the front page of it.

    122. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I actually said this already. Plus I wasn't complaining that it wasn't already installed. I just wanted to install it myself and three things happened. 1) I tried the Add/Remove panel and it's not there 2) I tried compiling the source and I got stuck because of dependency issues. I think if I could have gotten autoconf installed I could have done it but I couldn't get it either... not in add/remove 3) I had no idea what the F*** Synaptics was since that name also belongs to a company that makes touch pads.

      I have it installed now but I found out that Synaptics put the files in different directories then the manual says they should be in so now I have to find everything. Took me a while just to start the damned service...

    123. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Wow, the English language just wooshes over some people's heads. I didn't say that Synaptics was not intuitive. I SAID that I didn't know to USE IT!

      Synaptics is actually very intuitive once you figure out that you have to use it.

    124. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      That's not really the point. The original post was about why the average joe would not adopt Linux and that's because they would throw their hands up and quit before they even found out about the whole repository paradigm. It's not that I couldn't look up what a repository was; it's that I never heard the word in reference to software installs before yesterday. If that means I just fell off a turnip truck then oh well but so did 99% of the rest of the world.

    125. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by sammyF70 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's called "Synaptic Package Manager" in the System->Administration menu. It is indeed similar to the name the company called Synaptics (notice the 's' at the end) but the "package manager" bit is kind of a giveaway, really.

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    126. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      So you prefer that people understand what you wrote about as well as most people understand my good friend Billy S.

      This really has degraded to a kind Of excellent dumb discourse all for the want of a writing tool because a person did not use it hundreds of years before it was invented then, hasn't it.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    127. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
      Ok... here is the sentence you wrote again..

      I didn't know to use Synaptics because it's not intuitive.

      Whatever meaning you had in your head did not translate to what you wrote.
      Also, when you say.."Synaptics is actually very intuitive once you figure out that you have to use it."
      I think your again expecting people to know your thoughts, because you do not HAVE to use it. There are many
      other ways to install software. Synaptic is a GUI for apt, you can install using command line with apt. There is
      a program called aptitude that is similar to Synaptic.. dpkg will also install downloaded .debs, as will GDebi which is
      another graphics installer.. and then there is building from source, but that's a whole other issue.

      I do think most people new to Linux should stick with Synaptic, because it is so easy to use. The Windows way, of downloading and double clicking to run an installer would be similar to downloading a .deb file, double clicking and using GDebi to install it.. BUT.. isn't is so much simpler to use Synaptic to search for the program, and install it from your repository where you know that it is compatible with your distro ?

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    128. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by solferino · · Score: 1

      In general, I don't like emoticons. What Shakespeare did not write:

      To be, or not to be. That is the question. :-(

      You're clearly not familiar with the King's Leeth edition, published shortly after the first folio and unfortunately mostly overlooked by scholars.

      A few examples from the text of the same play you quote from:

      How now! a rat?

      <3 )~~
      Dead, for a ducat, dead!

      Brevity is the soul of wit :-P

      Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio :'(
    129. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because Apache httpd is really targeted at network and server admins, not people who want to run just one website on their home computer.

      That said, in RedHat-flavored distros the answer is easy. Delete or move the files in /var/www/html and replace the contents of that directory with your website. That's it.

      Now I'd put my website in a directory under /home/myusername and add a file to /etc/httpd/conf.d to define a virtual host. But I've been using Apache for a dozen or so years now, so I'm pretty comfortable with the contents of httpd.conf.

      For people just starting out with Linux who need to do server administration, I often install Webmin, a web-based graphical front-end for system administration. For people more comfortable with GUIs than the command line, it can often make things much easier.

    130. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh . . . to find where files are installed, click the "Installed Files" tab. Not only are you looking for a place to run into problems, you're doing a really shitty job at it.

    131. Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Hey assclown. The installed files tab doesn't say where specific binaries are. It just lists all the damned directories the package touched or placed shit in during install.

  6. Great timing! by sm62704 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    My PC just died; it looks like a power supply failure but I haven't disemboweled it yet to see, most likely the thing's full of cat hair and its fan stopped. If it's the power supply I'll just get a new bare-bones box.

    Now I have to research prices. Tha bad news is since I'm not really into PC gaming any more, the lowest of low end boards will do, and iinm asus is pretty high end, isn't it?

    Linux on the motherboard will free up disk space as well as booting faster.

    I'm intrigued. I guess I better rtfa now!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Great timing! by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Interesting

      booting faster. Instant on desktop is hard to beat in boot times! Which raises a question - How are we going to compare boot times with 0 boot time? How long does this splashtop actually take to load? Is it really instant on or just really fast? What can we expect coming down the pipeline? I would like to see a hybrid where most of what you need for an OS is stored in flash but if you need access to a program on the disk, you can get it.
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    2. Re:Great timing! by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      and iinm asus is pretty high end, isn't it? Asus has boards across the spectrum. I prefer their mid-high range stuff, but this page shows their breakdown of value-mainstream-highend boards (scroll to the bottom). I've had issues previously with the SiS chipsets, but that was 4 years ago so might not be relevant anymore.
      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Great timing! by Acapulco · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "...Splashtop enables users to access the Internet seconds after turning on their PC." So, it might not be truly "instant-on", still, if it's below maybe 5 seconds it could be considered "near" instant-on. But really, how many appliances are truly instant-on besides the fridge and the coffee maker? I mean, even the microwave oven, if unplugged and plugged again, takes about 1 or 2 seconds to initialize or whatever you call it.

      --
      Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
    4. Re:Great timing! by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm waiting for a machine that turns on before I actually push the power button.

    5. Re:Great timing! by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

      But really, how many appliances are truly instant-on besides the fridge and the coffee maker?

      Neither one is instant-on. It takes the fridge up to 24 hours to initialize (get cold) before you can store food in it, and coffee takes five to twenty minutes to perk.

      The radio is instant on. The light bulb is instant on, unless you get a really cheap CFL.

      My generation is weird; befor the transistor nothing was instant-on, after computers were built into everything nothing is instant-on. They shouldn't call us the "boomer generation" (even if some of us did blow stuff up REAL GOOD), they should call us the "instant-on generation".

      But an under five second computer boot? That's PDQ!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:Great timing! by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      What sort of coffee machine do you have that is instant on? Most electric coffee machines I know actually wait 'til the water is hot enough to make a good brew before they'll light up the "ready" indicator.

    7. Re:Great timing! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear about your PC. You must be using your psychic internet connection then? ;)

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    8. Re:Great timing! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      I have no clue on the state of the art, as I stopped being a PC repair d00d more than a decade ago.

      That said, BACK THEN, ASUS carried a ~$20 premium on a $150 mobo... It also generally performed a little better. And almost NEVER came back.

      So, ever since, I have bought only ASUS for myself when I've had component-selection priviledges. No problems, ever. In fact, I still have a Solaris 7/x86 server here that has been running continuously without repair since ... Jun 1999? 1998? It's a P2T4 IIRC, with a 400 MHz P-II Celeron in it. Socket 370, slocket, Slot-1.

      One of my favourite ASUS boards was the 486 PVI SP3. It had a built-in SCSI BIOS, for use with the ASUS SCSI controller, and was possibly the only board ever made with PCI and VESA Local Bus slots that didn't suck.

      I bought one of those in early 1996(?), and was quite pleased with the ASUS SCSI board which replaced my Adaptec 1522 (hooked up to a 1054MB 5400 RPM Fast-SCSI-II Fujitsu disk). I also had an ATI Mach 64 video card for it, and was running an AMD 486 DX4/100 on it. Oh yes, and Sound Blaster 16.

      I remember the day I installed Windows '95 on that box, I was totally blown away at the fact that I could drag around the Weezer video (Buddy Holly) in a window, with the animation still playing. The I/O on that box was insane! It was so fast!

      (Why does my Athlon running XP seem so much slower?)

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:Great timing! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Now I have to research prices. Tha bad news is since I'm not really into PC gaming any more, the lowest of low end boards will do, and iinm asus is pretty high end, isn't it? Actually, I seem to remember a few nice mid-range boards from them...
    10. Re:Great timing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for a machine that turns on before I actually push the power button. My wife used to do that. Before we got married, anyway :(
    11. Re:Great timing! by Acapulco · · Score: 1

      Ok. I gave bad examples, but you got the idea. The point is, very few things we use are completely instant-on.

      --
      Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
    12. Re:Great timing! by Acapulco · · Score: 1

      My coffee maker is made by Asus :)

      --
      Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
    13. Re:Great timing! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      No, I broke into the neighbor's house, tied him up, ate some food from his fridge and raped his wife. Now I'm using his computer. He can't call the police because he's a drug dea*&^%*&^%56u*)*&88[no carrier]

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    14. Re:Great timing! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      LMAO

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  7. Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of question by McNihil · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Not troll questions... seriously...

    Why is Microsoft relevant or have I missed them being marginalized to oblivion?

    Didn't Microsoft have a special deal with ASUS the other day regarding Windows?

    GM not wanting VISTA? (Don't blame them.)

    Why would any frugal investor stay with Microsoft these days?

  8. Is it really that exciting? by melonman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Including an OS on the motherboard makes sense for Asus - at least it is then possible to do basic hardware diagnostics independently of, say, Windows diagnostics.

    But, in terms of Linux adoption, it's only exciting if people keep linux once they've finished building the computer, and the precedents here are hardly promising.

    And, even if you like Linux (which I do), would you want to keep the version supplied with your m/b? On my first EeePC, I tried to get to like Xandros, I really did, but in the end I wiped it and installed Kubuntu. My Dark Side Brother played with Xandros until he broke it, and then installed XP. And it's going to happen even more with the EeePC 900, since the Linux version has a larger SSD than the Windows version (at least in the UK), so you buy the Linux version in order to install Windows.

    --
    Virtually serving coffee
    1. Re:Is it really that exciting? by joggle · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought the way they're doing this is this is a minimal Linux distro and is embedded in the motherboard. At boot, you would have the option of booting off your hard disk as usual or you could chose to boot off of the embedded OS if you just want to check your e-mail, talk on skype or browse the web. Seems pretty neat to me, especially considering it would boot in just a couple of seconds.

    2. Re:Is it really that exciting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      UH???

      I think you completely ignore what Slashtop is.
      Slashtop is a minimal OS on a ROM physically mounted on the MB, it has nothing to do with the REAL OS you're going to install on the hard drive.
      When you boot up normally, the OS on hard drive is loaded, just as usual. I suppose that to open up Slashtop a particular key combination is needed during the boot process (just like entering the BIOS).

    3. Re:Is it really that exciting? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      On my first EeePC, I tried to get to like Xandros, I really did, but in the end I wiped it and installed Kubuntu. My Dark Side Brother played with Xandros until he broke it, and then installed XP.

      Noether the FA nor the actual press release they plagarized said if there was a whole distro or just a kernal, but when you have a computer with Linux (say, Xandros) preinstalled and want to change OSes, you can download any other distro of Linux free and legal, buy Windows for (imo) a stupidly high price, or download an illegal copy.

      This can only help Linux adoption rates.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Is it really that exciting? by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > And, even if you like Linux (which I do), would you want to keep
      > the version supplied with your m/b?

      You would probably keep Splashtop because it is in flash, probably in a larger BIOS chip. It isn't intended to be your primary OS. ASUS fully expects 99% of these motherboards to end up with Vista on a normal hard drive before it is delivered to the end user.

      The right question is how many of those end users will try Splashtop and find it handy for quick excursions into the net. If that number is large Splashtop will prosper and begin to add more and more features. Five years from now will be interesting if that happens.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Is it really that exciting? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's still a bit of a victory. It again validates Linux, and also ensures that Asus will be making sure their hardware has Linux support.

    6. Re:Is it really that exciting? by domatic · · Score: 1

      It's best to think of the Xandros as a bastardized Debian Etch. Chuck etch apt deb lines into the sources.list. You can safely do a "apt-get upgrade" but DON'T do an "apt-get dist-upgrade". You can install any Etch package or package built for Etch as long as it

      1. Doesn't replace or conflict any package with "asus" or "xandros" in the name.
      2. Doesn't conflict or replace kdelibs or libqt-mt.
      3. Doesn't replace or conflict the kernel or supplied drivers.

      Those caveats don't get in the way of much at all. My EEE has OpenOffice 2.4 from Sun's site (there is a guide you need to follow on this one so the Easy Mode icons still work), a recent Adobe reader, mplayer from Sid built on an Etch machine and installed, taglib1.5 so AlbumArt works correctly in "Music Manager (Amarok)", dterm for configuring serial devices, and a few other things that escape my mind. The biggie is being able to build Sid packages on this Etch buildhost I keep around. That is the keyhole that lets me install anything I want without losing the good job Asus did of making wireless, suspend, video, sound, and the Desktop Just Work. Once FireFox 3 goes out of beta, I'll chuck that on too.

      The one improvement that is somewhat difficult is removing UnionFS. If you do things like replace OpenOffice, you want that because you otherwise lose space for every large package that is "removed" but invisibly occupying space.

    7. Re:Is it really that exciting? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      You say it makes sense for Asus, and that it doesn't matter for Linux Nation, but you don't mention the people it benefits the most - users. Even if no one uses it as a primary OS, having built in Linux on the motherboard could completely revolutionize hardware troubleshooting and system recovery.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    8. Re:Is it really that exciting? by dookiesan · · Score: 1

      A laptop that boots in a couple seconds would be very useful. Desktops are often turned on all the time, so a quick boot time doesn't matter--I reboot maybe once a week.

    9. Re:Is it really that exciting? by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The place where this will likely cause the biggest problem for MS is when Joe Sixpack has problems with their Windows install. Whether it is from a virus, malware, or just the natural degradation of Windows, eventually most people end up with some kind of problem on their Windows System. Right now, most of them take the system to someone to fix the problem, just live with what they know is a problem, or chuck the whole computer and buy a new one. With a Linux desktop installed in the BIOS, many will learn the key combination that lets them boot to Linux. They don't care what OS they are using. They just want to access their MySpace page. Once they have spent a year using Linux because it worked well enough to keep them from spending the money on repairs or replacement, the idea of using Linux will not seem so strange.

    10. Re:Is it really that exciting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      The right question is how many of those end users will try Splashtop and find it handy for quick excursions into the net. If that number is large Splashtop will prosper and begin to add more and more features. Five years from now will be interesting if that happens. exactly, how many people will end up with broken/slow/infected or just downright insulting windows experiences who find that splashtop is indeed handy enough.
    11. Re:Is it really that exciting? by Taibhsear · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is how it is implemented. I have the P5E3 PREMIUM. The Linux boot is called Express Gate. It boots in about 5 seconds and gives the option to go into bios, the installed OS, or the express gate. You can use email, web browser, skype, and use flash drives (I believe this was first implemented to help update the bios more easily). Uses Splashtop desktop. Here's some quick info on it.

    12. Re:Is it really that exciting? by melonman · · Score: 1

      I think 'revolutionize' is a bit of an overstatement. Most people who are likely to fancy a bit of Linux-based hardware diagnosis can already do that with their favourite boot-from-CD distro, but it's hardly the sort of thing your average Word power user is going to try on the bus on the way to work.

      --
      Virtually serving coffee
    13. Re:Is it really that exciting? by thelexx · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure about that. On PC's I'm familiar with anyway, you aren't 'entering the BIOS' when you hit F10 (or whatever) at startup. You're entering the part of the BIOS code that allows user configuration. The BIOS is in fact what shows you and allows certain key presses to do things at startup to begin with. If the BIOS is altered to not show and not act on those keypresses, then Slashtop won't be available.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    14. Re:Is it really that exciting? by salveque · · Score: 1

      Also, If they make it writable, you might be able to rig it to boot and then mount a separate /usr from your HDD. Combine this with other up coming technologies (SSD, DDR3, Quad-Cores, et cetera) you could have REALLY fast boot times.

    15. Re:Is it really that exciting? by iamhigh · · Score: 1

      That is an excellent point. And since I spend some time here trying to calm down the Linux Freaks, I will take this opportunity to give you all some time to gloat and tell me how this could spur the Linux Desktop Revolution!!

      How many times have you wanted to verify and address, check an email, or some other quick task, but you just shut down your computer (for those that shutdown)? This could gain traction as a quick check option. And once a user sees the internet in under a minute, they may not go back.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    16. Re:Is it really that exciting? by slarrg · · Score: 1

      So, with Apples booting OS X or Windows and ASUS motherboards booting embedded Linux and Windows, Microsoft has stated that their operating system now runs on 168% of all computers.

    17. Re:Is it really that exciting? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      My Dark Side Brother played with Xandros until he broke it, and then installed XP.

      And you still call him brother? You are very forgiving.

    18. Re:Is it really that exciting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you mean your brother buys the Linux version and fresh (non-transferable) MS Windows / Office etc. licenses at significant cost?

  9. Still don't see the point of burning it into ROM by iamacat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just include an SD card reader on the motherboard and let OEMs/end users integrate a system of their choice? In their approach, the system is not getting any security fixes. Potentially, the built in browser can be owned by simply visiting a web site. There is no way to install even a single extra application. Sounds like this has more to do with marketing than technology.

  10. I RTFA and cursed by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's that damned juvenile geek.com, and TFA's not much longer than the summary.

    And it ends with "Read the press release" that the submitter should have linked in the first place rather than that incredibly BAD geek.com) "here".

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  11. *Fwooosh!* by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somewhere in Washington state, a chair is launched on a direct trajectory towards Asus's offices. Naturally NORAD is confused at first till they calculate the launch location.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:*Fwooosh!* by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      No doubt. But seriously, this suggests that Asus may not want to be configuring their Linux EeePC's to cost more than the XP model.

      At very least, the Eee pricing seems to be a chair dodging maneuver.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    2. Re:*Fwooosh!* by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please explain to me how this change from ASUS could possibly affect the number of Windows licenses sold. I'm savvy with the chair-throwing "joke", but it has to at least slightly make sense in context.

    3. Re:*Fwooosh!* by JBv · · Score: 1

      Everytime something new and sexy comes to desktop PCs that does not depend on windows or microsoft, microsoft loses power.

      So now we may have web browsing and voip on power up with no need for explorer or windows. Soon we may have bios-knoppix or bios-ubuntu, with openoffice and support for external media. I bet that would make for some sleepless nights in Redmond.

    4. Re:*Fwooosh!* by Leomania · · Score: 1

      Microsoft currently sells a supposedly quick boot environment for use in multimedia computers. It is of course just a lite flavor of Windows, and from my experience it doesn't boot all THAT much faster.

      If they make money from this (one would have to assume they do, no?) then having it displaced by a Linux-based version would likely have some impact. Probably small, but just another ding on top of other challenges faced by Microsoft.

      I think this meets your "slightly makes sense" criteria.

      --
      You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
  12. Wow, OVER over a million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that like over a million squared, or over 2 million?

  13. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Gat0r30y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because even though people will now have the option of booting into an instant on linux desktop - 99% will wait 10 minutes to get into vista just to check their email and play on the internet anyway.

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
  14. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is Microsoft relevant or have I missed them being marginalized to oblivion?
    Close. What you've been seeing lately between the failed Yahoo buyout, the attempts at getting all friendly with the Open Source community, and their wrecking ball thrown at the ISO organization is Microsoft grasping at straws, trying to maintain their monopoly.

    Microsoft will remain a player, but they are being marginalized more, day by day. A few years ago, ASUS wouldn't have dared done anything like Splashtop.

    Go ahead, fanoys, mod me down because you know I'm right.
  15. No Windows tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now PCs can be sold without Windows pre-installed and without all the "the users needs an OS" noise?

  16. Debian "Moles" What Prevents Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regarding the recent SSL bungle:

    I'm not placing blame on anyone, but let us consider for a moment:

    How long would it take a member of a rogue organization, a company such as Microsoft, or an intelligence agency to land a spot into such a role as a code monkey at Debian.org, under the guise of a pro-FOSS person? You do know all three examples above are quite savvy when it comes to infiltration, mafias, corporations, and intelligence agencies do this all of the time. So let us suppose this is what happened here, and considering the wide range of impact with this issue, I believe this is exactly what may have happened.

    What checks and balances are in place to weed out potential moles? Any? And would you really know what to look for even if such a policy is in place? Perhaps this question is worthy of an "Ask Slashdot" submission?

    How many Tor hidden services (.onion) were taken down because of MITM attacks related to this issue? Fucking moles!

    1. Re:Debian "Moles" What Prevents Them? by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since all packages have been signed off by someone we'd know exactly who had done it. It's not exactly like all packages and code can't be traced every step of the way.

    2. Re:Debian "Moles" What Prevents Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means nothing, the damage is already done and the person could "disappear".

    3. Re:Debian "Moles" What Prevents Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Since all packages have been signed off by someone we'd know exactly who had done it. It's not exactly like all packages and code can't be traced every step of the way."

      Your post is marked insightful while the parent is still 0? Exactly how does that work?

      The parent's point stands: you can trace the code every step of the way all you want, but just like this SSL oops, the damage has already been done (and for how long?) and the "mole" can vanish like a fart in the wind.

      Your post is not insightful, it means nothing when you have a mole inside, but nice try, do you have friends as moderators?

    4. Re:Debian "Moles" What Prevents Them? by zx-15 · · Score: 1

      That happened because:
      (a) parent is trolling
      (b) parent uses ugly font

  17. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by neokushan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would imagine the main purpose is to fix any broken OS you install afterwards, instead of digging out that old copy of Knoppix you have lying around or whatever.
    True, there's a bit of a security risk, but as you said it's burned to a ROM, meaning you can't install any applications, so what IS the risk, really?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  18. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    Wow, I was going to go grab a finance report on MSFT to show why investors stay with Microsoft, but really Microsoft stock has been in a roller coaster decline sense 2000.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  19. Can you roll your own Splashtop? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is only useful if I can make my own splashtop image. Then it's useful for ALL KINDS of things, including media centers and most especially THIN CLIENTS. Also if you have... uhh, kexec I think? That lets you load a linux kernel from a linux kernel? Then you could jump from this right into your real distribution without having to re-POST.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Can you roll your own Splashtop? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Why not? Current ASUS motherboards all come with reflashable firmware, why would their new motherboards be any different?

    2. Re:Can you roll your own Splashtop? by onetruedabe · · Score: 1

      vmplayer (or Xen, or VirtualBox, or...) would get my vote.

      Integrate the hypervisor into the motherboard and run whatever OS(es) you desire. If the mobo could suspend/resume the OS itself, it would make "instant on" a lot less painless -- and you could dual-boot without having to actually shutdown in the middle.

    3. Re:Can you roll your own Splashtop? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Utilities for disk imaging - local disk, local optical, unicast network and multicast network - would be useful also.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Can you roll your own Splashtop? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could see this particular feature being write-protected to "protect you". Then they expect you to buy a board with SD or something if you want to roll your own.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Can you roll your own Splashtop? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Does any virtualization environment allow all host operating systems (near?-)native access to the video card yet?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Can you roll your own Splashtop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even without your own image - they included rdesktop you could use this setup as a diskless Thin Client.

  20. VERY useful ! by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    imagine your original os crashes and burns. what to do ? go seek out bootable cds - is the cd drive working anyway ? etc.

    no need. go bios, go linux, fix your hd, and install your os. or even, recover it.

    i liked that.

    1. Re:VERY useful ! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Boot from the second partition you wisely set up with an old install? Use the "last known good" configuration? Boot from a livecd? USB stick? Second machine? Honestly, the only time I have a problem not getting into my OS is if the hard disk takes a nose dive, in which case I worry about other things than the OS...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  21. wireless by phrostie · · Score: 1, Interesting

    if wireless works out of the box, i'm there

    1. Re:wireless by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      The P5E3 Premium has onboard wireless that Express Gate uses for it's connection IIRC.

    2. Re:wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get the point. All hardware will be Linux compatible (proprietary or open). It will be easier to switch to any Linux dist.

  22. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by iamacat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you can not install applications in ROM, doesn't mean you can not infect or format local disks, USB devices or launch an attack on the Intranet which is otherwise behind a corporate firewall.

  23. ScreenDUO for linux ? by BESTouff · · Score: 1

    Right, nice, but when will they include linux drivers for their Sideview implementation, ScreenDUO ? For now, people buying motherboards with this addon tiny screen are left with a non-working gizmo, unless they run Vista or XP.

  24. Neat - but not all that useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have one of the ASUS P35E Deluxe motherboards at home, and one of the reasons I picked it was for Splashtop. It wasn't the main reason, but I figured it was a neat addition. But honestly, Splashtop isn't all that useful.

    For one thing, for all that it's "instant on", it still doesn't load all that much faster than XP. Now maybe it's just because I have a hot processor, or a really lean XP installation, but honestly the difference isn't that noticable. Splashtop does load faster, but it's hardly "instant on"; you still need for the OS to boot.

    Then, there's the fact that all my info -passwords, bookmarks, etc.- are on my hard-drive and thus not accessible (at least, not by default) to Splashtop. So I'd have to punch all that info into a second OS (and there's no security on Splashtop, so I'd recommend against leaving any passwords in the browser).

    I suppose for laptop users Splashtop may be marginally more useful, although even they may prefer to load up the main OS, since it doesn't take that much longer to run and then they get access to all their information.

    I do like having a security blanket of having a way to check the web for help just in case XP hoses itself. Boot to Splashtop, surf the web for an answer, and then use that information to fix Windows. But in the end, Splashtop is more of a toy than a genuinely useful feature.

    1. Re:Neat - but not all that useful by mgblst · · Score: 1

      So, how many seconds does it take?

  25. Can it be replaced? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to replace their pre-installed distribution with something like Ubuntu instead? Obviously, I am not expecting to fit the whole distro on the chip..

  26. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by hike2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK, so your READ ONLY boot-up OS is owned ... OMG, what are you going to DO? I know, REBOOT! 5 seconds later you can browse again, just don't go back to that same site ... I say with Gmail and the Google apps I would only boot my computer to a full OS if I want to save something on fixed media or play a game.

    --
    Fourty-two!
  27. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or you're thinking about it entirely wrong.

  28. This is not Linux by JeremyGNJ · · Score: 5, Informative

    People get so excitable every time they hear the word "linux". But the fact is, this is not really Linux, not in a form that people would run as an OS.

    It's just a way that Asus found to leverage something that is free, in order to avoid having to write their own own code for motherboard diagnostics and such. No one is going to "switch to linux" because their motherboard has a linux based diagnostic included.

    Maybe Asus will put the work "Linux" in bold letters of the mobo box, but this will not do anything. It will not "bring linux to the masses", because anyone who's actually buying a motherboard (as opposed to buying a pre-built computer), already knows what Linux is and will either run it, or not.

    1. Re:This is not Linux by bberens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it would be really interesting to boot my computer into "energy conservation mode" which doesn't even power up the hard disks but allows me to browse the web and send e-mail with near-instant on capability. Then, if I needed more 'stuff', I could switch to "normal" mode and get to all the rest of my stuff if need be. Having spent some time using things like feather linux, the responsiveness of using a RAM disk would make almost ANY average user wet themselves with glee.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    2. Re:This is not Linux by Shatrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No one is going to "switch to linux" because their motherboard has a linux based diagnostic included I expect a lot of people will try linux for precisely that reason. There is a pretty large community of hardware tinkerers and overclockers that know lots and lots about cache sizes and bus widths but fairly little about software. I have met lots of these types who convince themselves that linux is "free as in crap" so that they won't have to learn anything more powerful that windows XP.

      Now if ASUS which is a darling of the hardware enthusiast community says that linux is a powerful tool I expect some of those perceptions will be changed.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:This is not Linux by JeremyGNJ · · Score: 0, Troll

      sure, as long as you are willing to run an un-patched OS and browser. Of course...they could make it patchable....but then they'd need to add more storage space.....so they might use a flash card reader....but that might not be fast enough. Maybe they should switch to a solid state hard drive.

    4. Re:This is not Linux by east+coast · · Score: 1

      There is a pretty large community of hardware tinkerers and overclockers that know lots and lots about cache sizes and bus widths but fairly little about software.

      Linux may be obscure to Joe Sixpack but it's simply not that obscure. Anyone who has the ability (let alone the desire) to build their own PCs that doesn't already know about Linux are few and far between.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:This is not Linux by __aabvlw4075 · · Score: 1

      No one is going to "switch to linux" because their motherboard has a linux based diagnostic included. Well, they sure make it sound like it's more than just a diagnostic utility. From their website:

      Fast
      With Splashtop your computer is ready to use seconds after you turn it on. Instead of waiting for a full boot, you have Web access in mere seconds. Chat, surf, play a game - all one click away.

      Secure
      Splashtop is a secure Web-surfing environment. You can surf the Web while staying immune to many of the attacks that plague Windows.

      Eco-Friendly
      Splashtop boots so quickly there's no reason to leave your PC on all the time. Now you can use your time more effectively, and consume much less energy. That said, I agree with you that this isn't suddenly going to "bring linux to the masses" -- but it could introduce a few more people to a non-Windows-centric world.
    6. Re:This is not Linux by rainhill · · Score: 1

      I Agree w/u completely. Nothing to loose, no time wasted, why not try? ~ good selling point for anything.

    7. Re:This is not Linux by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Linux may be obscure to Joe Sixpack but it's simply not that obscure. Anyone who has the ability (let alone the desire) to build their own PCs that doesn't already know about Linux are few and far between.

      He didn't say they didn't know about Linux's existence. He said they thought Linux was shit because it's free. This is actually a well-known (if not -understood) principle in advertising; if you charge too little, people assume you have a shitty product. They don't actually believe in a conscience, see? So you just have to gouge them like everyone else.

      Obviously Linux doesn't work on that principle, so we require alternative methods of advertising. Instead of compromising the ideals, we just work on a longer scale. Because the primary goal is not to make money, we can work through honest means.

      Without the GPL, honestly, the Linux kernel would have been a non-starter. We already have free Unix variants whose source code can be closed after modification.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:This is not Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's Linux, but not the GNU/Linux most people talk about. It's a kernel after all, not an OS!

  29. Bad Precedent by geekmansworld · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This seems like a really bad idea. Microsoft is immediately going to feel the need to compete with this (irrational as that may be). Soon enough we'll have Windows APIs embedded in the ROMS of major motherboards, and we'll pay more for these "Microsoft certified" motherboards because the added loading speed is a "feature".

    Hardware should never be tied to an operating system. I'm a Mac user, and even I believe in that sacred tenet. The consumer needs to be able to choose whatever components they want, and tose components should work together to the best of their ability.

    Because it's free, Linux on Asus boards may not impede my consumer choice at the moment. But it sets a precedent which could greatly damage the environment of choice we currently enjoy.

    1. Re:Bad Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well your Mac has a boot operating system called Open Firmware (written in Forth, gack). It's a little different than this ASUS idea but not much. Sun machines have something similar in firmware. It's not intended to be a primary OS.

    2. Re:Bad Precedent by black_lbi · · Score: 1

      The consumer needs to be able to choose whatever components they want, and tose components should work together to the best of their ability. Like you get to choose what player you want to use to manage your music when you buy an Ipod, right? Or a 8 bit display on a MacBook/Pro (Pro - isn't that ironic?)

      Microsoft is immediately going to feel the need to compete with this (irrational as that may be). By your logic we should all stop using operating systems/personal computers in order to stop the abominable evil that is Microsoft.
      In no way should anyone try to do something innovative (or useful), for the fear of M$ coming along and somehow make us pay through our noses.

      Makes no sense to me.
    3. Re:Bad Precedent by marnues · · Score: 1

      What?
      This is not replacing anything you already had. This is an incredibly easy and powerful way to include a diagnostics tool on the mobo itself. It does not limit you in any way. Other than you can't replace the diagnostics tool on the mobo itself, but nothing is stopping you from booting to a usb stick with $YOUR_PREFERED_DIAG_ENV. I'm completely baffled any negative response to this.

      Of course I note the other uses of this (my grandfather would frankly love this as he only uses a webbrowser for email and hates all the waiting). But I doubt there's much interest for this as anything but a diag tool on Slashdot.

    4. Re:Bad Precedent by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      No, but i assume it could be. Forth is a real language and OS. Well documented and mature.

      Donno about the resources it has access to on the Mac hardware however.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Bad Precedent by f8l_0e · · Score: 1

      Older macs also (New World firmware, before OpenFirmware) had toolbox ROM which actually was api calls on ROM. The Performa series had the ROM chip on the removable cache module, IIRC.

    6. Re:Bad Precedent by Axed33 · · Score: 1

      Because it's free, Linux on Asus boards may not impede my consumer choice at the moment. But it sets a precedent which could greatly damage the environment of choice we currently enjoy. Have another think about this. If Microsoft ever did embed a version of Windows on a motherboard, it's hardly going to be the "Ultimate" edition is it. It would probably be deliberately crippled in order to avoid cannibalizing sales of the full versions. In this scenario Linux could easily compete by being more capable, to the point where it is good enough to use as a main OS for many users (once the hardware reaches the point where it can boot such an OS quickly).

      Or if you go the other way, keep things lean and use these motherboards in internet "appliances" - it really doesn't matter what is running underneath. Why purchase Windows PC when you can get a cute little web browser box that does what you need cheaper and faster? This is hardly a market that Microsoft wants to encourage as they're not going to earn anywhere near as much revenue from these devices.

      Say Microsoft didn't cripple their embedded version. This lowers the price of entry for Windows - thus further commoditizing the operating system and reducing the value of sales as a source of revenue. In this scenario the provision of services becomes a more important business model - which is precisely the model that generates revenue from Linux.

      Whichever way you think the industry is going to head, it's hard to construct a scenario where embedded operating systems are bad for Linux (right now it is really the only choice). And since it's a free (as in speech) operating system, what's good for Linux is good for consumers in the long run.
    7. Re:Bad Precedent by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This seems like a really bad idea. Microsoft is immediately going to feel the need to compete with this (irrational as that may be). Soon enough we'll have Windows APIs embedded in the ROMS of major motherboards, and we'll pay more for these "Microsoft certified" motherboards because the added loading speed is a "feature".

      First of all, it's reduced loading speed - it's increased loading time. Your comment is constructed almost entirely out of mistakes which can easily be compared to this one.

      Also, who is this we you speak of when you say "we'll pay more for these ... motherboards"? I'm not buying any Microsoft Certified motherboards, and if you do, it's nobody's fault but your own - certainly not Asus'. The market decides what the market wants; Asus doesn't, and especially Asus does not create a product by not actually creating it themselves.

      Hardware should never be tied to an operating system. I'm a Mac user, and even I believe in that sacred tenet. The consumer needs to be able to choose whatever components they want, and tose components should work together to the best of their ability.

      Have you been a Mac user long? Because Apple has gone to great lengths in the past to prevent people from getting their hands on the full specs to their hardware. It's the primary reason that the Be guys decided to sell out - their business model depended on being able to provide an alternative OS for the Mac (which still desperately needs one) and they couldn't make it fly. The netbsd community barely manages to have mac68k support with still lots of problems, though of course it's not much of a priority any more what with the cost of PC hardware.

      Because it's free, Linux on Asus boards may not impede my consumer choice at the moment. But it sets a precedent which could greatly damage the environment of choice we currently enjoy.

      No, it really doesn't, because the system they're installing is Linux-based, and thus free. It doesn't set a precedent of putting a heavy operating system in there. Also, I suspect that getting the same functionality via windows would take four times the space at least. No one is going to make that decision.

      Anyway, we already have hardware designed specifically for Windows. The Dell Vostro 1500, for example, has a slot specifically for use with a cache card to speed up whichever Vista technology that is that requires a bunch of flash ram... readyboost? Speedupmyass? I forget what it's called, because I don't have to care about Vista, so I don't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Bad Precedent by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well your Mac has a boot operating system called Open Firmware (written in Forth, gack). It's a little different than this ASUS idea but not much. Sun machines have something similar in firmware. It's not intended to be a primary OS.

      More to the point, Apple got this technology from Sun. It's been used since (IIRC) the earliest sun4 class of machines, not sure about sun3s. It's been a long time since I had one and I just don't remember any more.

      The reason the (old?) Sun console is sooooo slow (most people will never see a Sun console, thank god) is that the video card driver which produces the console output is running in interpreted forth. (This is before JIT recompilation was in vogue. Besides, when one of these machines had a lot of RAM it had like 32MB. I had three 8MB SUNVME boards, those giant VME boards bigger than an AT mainboard.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Bad Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The consumer needs to be able to choose whatever components they want, and tose components should work together to the best of their ability. If you don't want something that comes with a piece of hardware, use different hardware. ASUS isn't holding a gun to your head.
  30. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i would imagine Asus has this set up so you can update the embedded Linux on the motherboard much like updating the firmware on any other piece of hardware or like the BIOS or router firmware...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  31. Motherboard Malware! by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rock on... I'd like some integrated malware instead of this 'operating system' bullsh*t.

    I might even be able to steal some myspace passwords with it ... and pretend I've got friends ...

  32. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure you're factoring out the background (the fact that the whole market has been in a roller coaster decline since 2000). I'd expect MS to be down relative to the market, but not yet down too much. Yet.

  33. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Locklin · · Score: 1

    roller coaster decline sense 2000 huh, so their stock price has moved lock-step with OS quality... who knew?
    --
    "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  34. Also by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, the vast majority of those 1 million motherboards per month are sold to OEM's who may or may not enable the Linux functionality on their finished product. How much do you want to bet that MS will quietly put pressure on said OEM's to disable it?

    ASUS has great overclocking options in their BIOS too...until OEM's get a hold of them and put their customer BIOS in place that leaves out all the good stuff. This will be the same.

    1. Re:Also by TechForensics · · Score: 1

      I'll bet a lot that MS will suddenly invent an instant-on bootup environment that works the way that *Microsoft* wants, with just enough of a Windows-specific feature edge to edge out Linux altogether. Manufacturers like Asus will, sadly, vote the bottom line.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    2. Re:Also by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      They already have XP Embedded which would fill the same niche. I would not be surprised to see it licensed to motherboard vendors in the near future.

      To Microsoft: If for some reason you haven't thought of this idea and see this post, I will gladly sell you the rights to my idea for 1 MILLION dollars *puts pinky to the corner of his mouth*

  35. Bundling? by Aziabel · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a Linux-ite through and through, but this automatic bundling business is one of the huge anti-competitive issues with Microsoft. And again, don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see Linux (in any flavour) being adopted more widely throughout the world, but isn't one of the basic principles of GNU/Linux/FOSS/etc freedom and choice? What if you don't want this feature on your motherboard? What if you want a different flavour of Linux? Yes, you're right, ASUStek is NOT a GNU company/organization. Yes, you're right, you CAN choose not to buy an ASUS board (just like you can choose not to buy a HP or Dell preloaded with Windows). But if bundling is wrong for one, how can it be right for another? Just because you don't have the majority of the consumer market, doesn't make the practice any more justifiable.

    --


    49 20 61 72 65 20 6E 65 72 64 2E
    1. Re:Bundling? by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      this automatic bundling business is one of the huge anti-competitive issues with Microsoft.

      Because Microsoft are a monopoly. Bundling Free Software is hardly anticompetitive — other manufacturers are free to bundle the exact same software, or even bundle modified versions. It's pro competition.

      Yes, you're right, you CAN choose not to buy an ASUS board (just like you can choose not to buy a HP or Dell preloaded with Windows).

      Sure, you can choose not to buy something bundled with Windows. And you pay the price by being cut off from a vast supply of software that the rest of the world uses. Choosing to forgo this motherboard with its bundled Linux doesn't disadvantage you in the same way because there isn't an entire industry locked into it.

      Just because you don't have the majority of the consumer market, doesn't make the practice any more justifiable.

      Of course it does. Anticompetitive practices aren't intrinsically bad, they only become bad when they harm the market. If you don't have a monopoly market share, then anticompetitive actions don't harm the market, they harm your business as people switch away from you.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:Bundling? by domatic · · Score: 1

      I'm not really seeing your argument. The included Linux is more of a diagnostic and rescue tool. Most people who have one of these computers will never even see the Linux desktop on the things. Only techs and Linux gearheads will bother with it.

      And we aren't saying "bundling is teh Evel!". We're saying that a monopoly abusing bundling to push out competition is. The Linux on these things will not be the front and center user experience for most people who use these boards. It isn't in the same ballpark as some of the things MS has done. It isn't even the same sport.

    3. Re:Bundling? by Miltazar · · Score: 1

      Because this isn't bundling. Although Linux is an OS it is also widely used in embedded applications and appliances to add features without having to write as much code. This would be one of those cases. They are adding a FEATURE to their motherboards. They aren't forcing anyone to use it, they are just putting it there. With bundled OS's, they are bundling the main software you use(OS) and changing it is usually a pain.

      This isn't a normal OS in the sense that its not meant to be your primary OS, its just a secondary OS that can boot faster. What if you don't want this feature on your motherboard? Don't use it maybe? Isn't that akin to asking "What if I don't want 2 PCI-E slots on my motherboard?" If you don't want it, don't buy it. Really in the end this is the same with embedded Graphics. Its useful for some purposes, it might even be useful for a lot of low-end users. However its not intended nor will it ever be a replacement for the full blown OS.

      --
      "Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?"
    4. Re:Bundling? by BlackCreek · · Score: 1
      You are missing the point that that is a new functionality being added to a motherboard. You don't like it? You still have a motherboard with the same functionality you had up to now.

      You *really* don;t want it? Overwrite the flash where the image lies. Rip it off from the board.

      My Dell Inspiron also had a built-in OS (though not on the board) that would load much faster (than XP), and play media files. Extra functionality. Don't like, don't use.

      Besides, as a lot of people are pointing, the problem is not bundling, the problem is when you have (1) a monopolist (2) abusing its monopoly position.

  36. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

    Wow, I was going to go grab a finance report on MSFT to show why investors stay with Microsoft, but really Microsoft stock has been in a roller coaster decline sense 2000.
    Exactly. Look at my previous post above. Pay attention, folks. Why do you think that the Microsoft shills and astrotufers have been here on Slashdot? Again, they are grasping at straws. They know the end of Microsoft's total dominance is happening now. Again, Microsoft will continue to be a player, but their historical total industry control is definitely no longer an option now.
  37. psst by mark72005 · · Score: 1

    the Apple forum is that way --->

  38. Big target. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft and their sympathizers have claimed that the main reason it's the big victim of malware is that it is the big target, and that if other OSes were as widely deployed they'd be as riddled. Linux, BSD, Firefox, Apache, and other FOSS projects claim that it mainly Microsoft's poor security, not just the monoculture providing a big target.

    Now we have million motherboards a month shipping with an identical OS - including a network stack and a browser - in the BIOS. Heavily used in this mode by the purchasers. If this is successfully suborned by malware it can romp all over the hard drive, even if the main system install isn't booted.

    Seems to me this is a showdown between the Microsoft and FOSS sides' claims. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Big target. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      We had that with a greater number of Apache installs than Microsoft IIS and people still try the "big target" argument. It won't go away easily.

    2. Re:Big target. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Now we have million motherboards a month shipping with an identical OS - including a network stack and a browser - in the BIOS. Heavily used in this mode by the purchasers. If this is successfully suborned by malware it can romp all over the hard drive, even if the main system install isn't booted.

      Hardware write disable the flash with a jumper and you just solved 99.44% of the potential issues there. The tiny remaining portion that feels a need to obsessively write-enable everything is probably not even .56% of the computer-using population.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Does this really count as a "desktop" by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    Regardless of the OS, does this really count as desktop ?

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  40. imagine... by kylie69 · · Score: 0

    a Beowulf cluster of these mobos!

    --
    One man, one word.
  41. A little customization goes a long way by lavalyn · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the details of this software. Does this SplashVM provide hard disk access (since it obviously provides sound access for Skype)? If so, think VMware or Xen built straight into the image or early parts of boot... virtualization and absolute rollbacks for the masses.

    As an eeepc user, I am very much applauding Asus for their use of Linux to provide further value to their products. Ubiquitous Linux in this fashion can't be wrong!

    --
    Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
    1. Re:A little customization goes a long way by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      It's good that Asus is pushing Linux harder, but the Eee PC's default Linux is, in my view, awful. It's based on Xandros, which sucks anyway, but the OS just stinks of being unfinished.

      Asus really need to create something more polished if it's going to become mainstream.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    2. Re:A little customization goes a long way by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      If so, think VMware or Xen built straight into the image or early parts of boot... virtualization and absolute rollbacks for the masses. VMware ESXi is exactly this. A 32MB ESX install they deliver in the form of a USB stick you plug into the motherboard (on the inside of the server). The USB key might just be Dell's implementation, but I'd prefer that over something soldered into the motherboard. I think I'd still like to see a second internal slot though.

      I know you can buy them from Dell, I'm not sure who else at the moment. That's the R900 configure page in case the link gets broken.

      Anyway... this is neat and all, but it doesn't really bring virtualization to the masses anymore than say, all the free virt. software from VMware, Microsoft, Xen, Sun, etc, and a whole slew of other cheap/free desktop virt. software I forgot to mention. Maybe I just don't get your drift :\
  42. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Microsoft stock has been in a roller coaster decline sense 2000.

    For those who like graphs.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  43. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by iamacat · · Score: 1

    In practice though users have had trouble updating BIOS or any other kind of firmware. The driver to update the firmware may not be there on the user's installation of desktop Linux, Vista 64 bit or virgin XP. Power failure at the wrong time can make the motherboard unbootable. Burn a CD or worse create a floppy schemes may leave out users who don't have the necessary hardware or media handy.

    People have better luck with USB sticks and SD cards. At least there in an option of bringing the card to a store or a knowledgeable friend and have them fix it properly.

  44. it isn't bundling .. by rs232 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Don't get me wrong, I'm a Linux-ite through and through, but .."

    Is there ever anyone who posts here who isn't a 'Linux-ite' :)

    "if bundling is wrong for one, how can it be right for another? Just because you don't have the majority of the consumer market, doesn't make the practice any more justifiable"

    Because Asus doesn't hold a virtual monopoly on the OS, the Applications and the server protocols. And it isn't as if they are forcing you to use it.

    "Within seconds of turning on the P5E3 Deluxe motherboard, you can boot into this Linux environment"

    And unlike MS and BeOS, they won't force you to boot from a floppy to access Windows.

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  45. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by 0racle · · Score: 1

    It's almost like some sort of bubble popped around 2000.

    OMFG STOCK PRICE FROM 2000 DROPED, MS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE! IT'S THE YEAR OF THE LINUX DESKTOP AT LAST!

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  46. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but my new Vista machine boots up to the desktop about 15 seconds faster than my girlfriend's new Macbook boots up to the desktop in Leopard. And it is a fair comparison as both were bought the same month and have very similar memory and CPU amounts/speeds.

  47. Info - Source code (from wikipedia ref)... by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1
    Wikipedia has ref to source download...here

    (Haven't checked it so not quite certain what it is :-/ ).

    Andy

  48. i can only speak for my self by peavy · · Score: 0

    most if my systems run on linux 5 linux 1 windows.

  49. Year of Linux by Kuvter · · Score: 1

    It's the year of Linux on the (Desktop) Motherboard!

    --
    "To be is to do." --Socrates
    "To do is to be." -- Aristotle
    "Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
  50. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

    1) No it hasn't, it's been pretty steady once they were past the bubble burst.

    2) The only big fall is there because you cherry-picked a timeframe that included the last-gasp of the tech bubble, thereby ensuring it'll show a huge drop. Any other tech company's stock price graph will look the exact same way. Bump your graph forward to 2001, and suddenly it looks... pretty steady.

    Cherry-picking values to show what you want to see != "roller coaster decline."

  51. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone has grossly misinformed you about the nature of my bubbles sir.

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
  52. Already ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So.......apt?
    Get with the times ;-)

  53. This is the year... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is the year of Linux on the... wait, motherboard? Who changed the script?

  54. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by SoylentRed · · Score: 1

    And my experience is completely the opposite. 6 month old Dell - 6 month old MacBookPro - really the same computers spec wise. Vista is sluggish as hell - boots like crap. Both have been reinstalled cleanly about 3 months ago.

  55. Finally? by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I may be confusing this with something else... but, does this mean I will FINALLY get my "5 seconds to KDE" boot time?

    Bundling?
    rs232 makes a very good point above...

    Because Asus doesn't hold a virtual monopoly on the OS, the Applications and the server protocols. And it isn't as if they are forcing you to use it.
    rs232 is quite correct.
    Go back 10 years... You simply could not buy a piece of (retail) hardware without getting a bunch of "goodies" on the driver and utility disks. Many major vendors that no one had ever heard of, got to be well known using this kind of marketing. Give it away for free, or include a trial version, as name recognition, even without monetization, can only be good for a company.
    Unfortunately, some of the goodies were crap. Second rate antivirus software, CD virtualization tools, and "backup" software were very common. Even so, you weren't FORCED into installing them. They were optional. That is VERY different than overtly or covertly installing a piece of sub-standard, or insecure software WITH the OS. (To me, the quality of the software isn't the big issue with bundling, though it plays a big part in how happy or unhappy I am when falling victim to the "bundling" problem.)

    Personally, I am very excited about this, and cannot wait to get one of my own....me and about a million other geeks, nerds, and ./ers/
    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    1. Re:Finally? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I may be confusing this with something else... but, does this mean I will FINALLY get my "5 seconds to KDE" boot time?

      I doubt it. KDE is heavy (not that GNOME isn't or anything) and I doubt they're using it.

      I'd go with xfce or fluxbox, although I'm sure someone knows something lighter and slicker. And frankly I never had that much problem with fvwm1, which could be used with a custom theme to get a pretty insanely light WM.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Finally? by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Light and pretty feature rich, I like ICEWM.

      But, most users will want a full featured Desktop with some Konqueror integration.. Boot that for me in 5 seconds, and I'll buy your computer. LOL

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  56. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    "pretty steady" As in, "Just barely not going down." or if you want optimistically, "Perhaps someday it will make money."

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  57. Mod parent up! by sgtrock · · Score: 1

    The man do have a clue! :)

  58. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love, love, love the idea of a RO OS!!!

    Currently if I go to my banking site, I have no idea whether my system is currently owned, and some keystroke logger is busy sending off my bank passcode to somebody who is going to empty my account.

    With a RO OS, I can reboot, and I'm much more likely to be able to complete the transaction without it being subverted.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  59. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by TechForensics · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What do you bet M$ will make sure it can't handle NTFS?

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  60. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by domatic · · Score: 1

    There is no doubt their fanbois can't handle a few simple truths or plausible suppositions at least. Mod back up and slap these punks on metamod.

  61. You're wrong on SO-O-O many points! by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    but this automatic bundling business is one of the huge anti-competitive issues with Microsoft. No. First of all, you can't engage in anti-competitive behavior unless you have a monopoly or are part of a trust with a monopoly. Which ASUS isn't. The problem with Microsoft's behavior wasn't that they have a monopoly (which is perfectly legal), nor that they engaged in bundling (which is also perfectly legal). The problem is that they used bundling as a tool to artificially maintain and leverage their monopoly. The fact that bundling was the tool (or one of the tools) they used is irrelevant. There's still nothing wrong with bundling per-se. It was the maintaining and leveraging of their monopoly that constituted anti-competitive behavior. Not the specific mechanisms (e.g. bundling).

    Yes, you're right, you CAN choose not to buy an ASUS board (just like you can choose not to buy a HP or Dell preloaded with Windows). You pretty much answered your own question there.

    But if bundling is wrong for one, how can it be right for another? Bundling wasn't wrong for MS. It was the anti-competitive that was wrong. I realize that car analogies are traditional on slashdot, but try this non-car analogy anyway: Two guys legally own guns. One shoots a bullet into a target. The other shoots a bullet into a shopkeeper while robbing a store. The latter is arrested, charged and convicted; the former gets off scott-free. But if shooting is wrong for one, how can it be right for another?

    If you can figure out the answer to that, you should be able to figure out the answer to your own question.
  62. doesn't matter by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I think it is bundling. But that doesn't matter, because, despite what the original post claimed, there's nothing wrong with bundling per-se. Bundling happened to be one of the mechanism MS used to illegally maintain and leverage their monopoly, but that doesn't mean that bundling is inherently wrong. Kicking a ball into a goal may win you praise; kicking an infant into a goal is likely to get you arrested. The problem is not the kicking, it's the circumstances and the target.

  63. Faulty Logic by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

    why must someone be "uninformed" to use Windows.

    That's not what (s)he said.

    The assertion was that being uninformed implies buying Windows, which seems perfectly reasonable.

    You twisted this into 'buying Windows implies being uninformed', which does not follow from the original statement.

    The correct re-phrasing would be Not buying Windows implies being informed, again pretty hard to argue with in the current consumer marketplace.

    Your final statement also implies that, as Linux lacks nothing that I require, I am not an everyday person. In this you are quite correct, as I find myself unable to manage it more than two or three times a week these days.

    --
    [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
  64. Security is a huge concern by ConfrontationalGrayh · · Score: 1

    How nice that the article "New Antivirus Tests Show Rootkits Hard to Kill" is right above an article about a company hard coding an OS into all of their motherboards. So we're supposed to trust that no rootkit will somehow end up on some of these boards when the consumer won't have the ability to see or make changes to the OS? Also, who in their right mind would use an OS that can't be updated? Have we learned nothing about the importance of security in this day and age?

  65. I can't find a clear answer on their site. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This splashtop stuff looks like a cute toy, and more linux is always nice; but I'm a bit nervous about the tivoization potential. The software image being used is mostly FOSS(skype and flash excepted, as usual) and they seem to have released the relevant source; but I've not been able to find anything about how open the environment is, can you replace the image, install your own stuff on it, etc.

    If the system is an open one, it could be quite useful, and great fun to play with, I'd want several. If this is just another tivo, then it is pretty unexciting and disappointing.

    1. Re:I can't find a clear answer on their site. by salveque · · Score: 1

      I hope it's open. I also hope they add some of their other nice features to all their motherboards. It would be nice if they let you use a USB key for BIOS in case you mess up... Because if it's open people will fiddle with it...

  66. Rickrolled Motherboard by positiveexperience · · Score: 1

    I want that Rickroll videoclip integrated in my motherboard, plus change that 'windows' button on keyboard to Rickroll button, so when i press it that videoclip instantly starts fullscreen!

  67. Hell yeah this is exciting. by ahfoo · · Score: 1

    The right question for me is how fast will it boot Knoppix from an iso image. And what kind of bizarre boot scenarios can it deal with it terms of USB or ethernet boots. I would assume it can handle pretty much all the typical stuff but I wonder if it adds any new possibilities. Perhaps something like booting a selection of isos off of a dual layer DVD filled an assortment would be cool. And what about virtualization?

  68. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One possible answer to this is to use a Knoppix CD. If you trust Knoppix...

  69. Source Code Please by kilgortrout · · Score: 1

    That's wonderful. And I can find the source code where?? Anybody have a link?

  70. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by ahfoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, but see this is where it's getting fun because they can play that game but they're not holding all of the cards any more. In the low-end of the market, it's a bit of a toss up already. If an OEM decides to go with these boards in a low-end machine they can just do Linux. Wal Mart and Dell are both selling Linux machines nowadays.

    This is the same problem with MS reversing themselves on XP in the sub-notebook category. They came to Taiwan's OEMs and said OK, now you can still get XP licenses on these lightweight notebooks but you have to follow these restrictions like small screens and limited RAM. But they're playing a tricky game there because they no longer run the only game in town. What the OEMs are faced with is using XP on the crappy ones with small screens and less RAM and Linux on the sweet next generation ones with the full sized screens and 2Gigs of RAM. This is a situation being created by Microsoft's ham handed attempts to pretend they remain in control when they no longer have the control. Playing the restrictions game no longer puts them in the drivers seat. Quite to the contrary, they're insisting on being left out of the action completely.

  71. Crippled BIOS by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    ASUS has great overclocking options in their BIOS too...until OEM's get a hold of them and put their customer BIOS in place that leaves out all the good stuff. Yup, and it's f**king annoying. Along the same line: many retail ATX boards have all sorts of multiplier & voltage settings in their BIOS, while their smaller microATX cousins lack this. Same technology, similar feature set, just a smaller board and a few expansion slots less. But why cripple the BIOS if the hardware perfectly supports different voltage & multiplier settings.

    Example: I'm using a mATX K7 board from MSI right now (one of the few mATX K7 boards with onboard SATA), coupled with a mobile Athlon XP2800+. The BIOS has zero support for this chip, it reports 'unknown CPU' at bootup and sets it at 6x multiplier (800 MHz) by default. Did a bridgemod on it to make default multiplier equal to nominal one, and a pinmod to obtain the correct voltage. And voila: rocksolid ever since, even software multiplier switching works fine. And why wouldn't it? It's basically a low-voltage Athlon XP. But why the hell aren't these settings in the BIOS, where a similar (fullsize) ATX board would include such settings? Is it less useful to run a mobile CPU on a mATX board, or what?

    P.S. I don't recommend bridge-modding any CPU. It's a pain, and you have a decent chance to render the part useless. I just did it because I preferred taking the chance, rather than having to buy even more parts.
  72. Set-top box by HeroreV · · Score: 2, Informative

    STB means "Set-top box" according to Wikipedia.

  73. bah by citylivin · · Score: 1

    Asus motherboards have this annoying auto overclocking "feature" which can make the machine stick at a bios prompt before booting. Really annoying when it happens to servers. I mostly notice it when theres a power loss. Very nannoying. On the other side, MSI have gone out of their way to replace boards and even one time a copper videocard heatsync, with little to no trouble.

    I sware by MSI hardware. So I guess my anecdote counters out yours eh...

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  74. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Informative

    but my new Vista machine boots up to the desktop

    Sure, it looks like it's booted to the desktop...but have you tried doing anything?

    Windows has been progressively delay-loading more and more, so while the upfront cost is cheaper, and it seems to be quicker, the time until you can actually do something of use hasn't really improved.
  75. DVD by boris111 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised they didn't have a DVD player app as a default. I would think that would be an essential feature of an instant on app.

    1. Re:DVD by f8l_0e · · Score: 1

      I could see it as an add on feature, but they probably didn't include it for three reasons.

      1. They would have to get each board licensed to legitimately play back DVDs.

      2. The only commercial decoder is from Cyberlink and I don't think they make in anymore.

      3. The linux crowd, myself included, would be pissed off at proprietary stuff in splashtop.

      Assuming that a splashtop image flashing becomes a possible task, there will be plenty of people loading decss and their favorite player.

    2. Re:DVD by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Sony include a DVD reader in their linux-based "instant-on" software on Vaio laptops.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    3. Re:DVD by f8l_0e · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. Do you have a link to the series? I'd like to read up on it more.

  76. Wintop! by argent · · Score: 3, Funny

    Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that a new version of Windows Mobile including Pocket Internet Explorer and Pocket Windows Media Player will be available for motherboard manufacturers in the third quarter. "The initial release will be limited to a 320x240 screen resolution and controlled by tapping the "reset" and "power" buttons to simulate mobile phone controls, but we think people will find this a big improvement over those messy mice and keypads".

  77. Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but will it run Linu... Oh crap

  78. Misleading numbers by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    That is about as bad as when Microsoft claimed the win 95 user numbers as so many PC's came preloaded as a requirement.

    It doesn't mean they kept it on there. I personally know of *several* thousand that were reformatted and 3.11 was put on.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  79. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

    You can use virtualization to do this without too much trouble. qemu has a readonly option: the "-snapshot" option makes it only write to the image when you tell it to. I assume other virtualization software has similar options.

    --
    Centralization breaks the internet.
  80. Global Warming.... bah! by jmorris42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    > So, about 2012 with global warming....

    Ok, it was funny. But Global Warming is quickly being debunked as a hoax. In another couple of years I'd predict it will join Piltdown Man in the Science Hoax wing of natural history. Of course if Cap & Trade is running by then I'll also go out on a limb adn predict it will somehow survive liek any other government boondoggle that outlives it's purpose.

    It ain't us, it's Mr. Sun being cranky and it is looking more and more like cold weather is in our future. Hit Spaceweather and have a look around. Note that Cycle 24 still hasn't kicked off. Look at the historical trends of solar activity. Compare and contrast to weather trends, including the fact "Global Warming" pretty much stopped around 1997-1998. Add in the PDO has officially ended it's warm phase and gone cool.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Global Warming.... bah! by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree that GW is most likely overblown, but you have to admit that the GP gave me the perfect setup!

      Cheers

  81. You're missing the point... by pyrr · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity, who appointed you the End User Advocate again? Just wondering.

    I figure I'll let users figure things out for themselves and raise their complaints. Places like the Ubuntu forums are a good place for people, including new users, to air their complaints about the usability of the OS. I've helped a few of my friends through minor obstacles with Ubuntu, once they grasp the new way of doing old tasks, it's usually smooth sailing.

    No, the point is that you may have some difficulties learning to do things a little differently, and you're projecting your lack of confidence onto Joe Sixpack. Most package management systems are fairly intuitive, and I haven't encountered many end users who struggled with them. It's different for you, you're a Windows power user. You're probably overwhelmed and don't know how to do all those things under a Linux-based OS yet. You're probably picturing trying to support so many different ways of doing things too and don't know where to begin on how to walk someone through, if that's your support mindset. Trust me, the learning curve is far quicker for folks who use only the basic applications than it is for the folks who have to re-learn how to do a good number of advanced tasks.

    For what it's worth, I support in the neighborhood of 450 Windows workstations and servers at work. I run Linux at home. I help several acquaintances and family members out with their occasional Kubuntu questions. Most of them are utterly tech clueless, and I got tired of helping them clean-up malware-riddled Windows. They adapted well...

    1. Re:You're missing the point... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying people can't convert to Ubuntu or something like it. I'm just saying that the issues I bring up are THE reason why people don't just ditch Windows once and for all and use Ubuntu or something like it. Plus, I've been on those forums and they aren't that friendly.

    2. Re:You're missing the point... by pyrr · · Score: 1

      I can only speak largely from my own experiences with end users, but most simply use Windows because it's what came on their computers. Many of them have trouble grasping the very notion that they have alternatives to Windows (some have mentioned to me that they, "had to throw away their old computer because they lost Windows," apparently referring to the recovery CD). There's a lot of inertia when it comes to changing things that somebody isn't knowledgeable about. Once they know, though, and are comfortable with their handful of critical applications, Windows is history.

      As for the ubuntu forums, I've found them to be pretty friendly and helpful for the most part-- there are some less-than-kind, socially-inept geeks, but so long as someone is following the forum guidelines when posing questions (e.g., asking beginner questions in the beginner forums, paying attention to topics, and not being demanding or rude when asking for help), people will gladly help.

  82. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > Any other tech company's stock price graph will look the exact same way.

    Not exactly. Yahoo's new Flash based charting is currently busted.... but find another one (foxbusiness has a Java based one that currently works) and overlay MSFT and the Nasdaq average on a five year chart. Both show big ups and down reflecting general market trends. But money put in Microsoft five years ago would only show a 16% return while throwing your money into the more broad (tech heavy) NASDAQ average would have returned 60%. Betting the S&P500 would have made you almost 50% and the DOW30 48%.

    Gone are the days when people who know nothing about Microsoft other than "it goes up" are buying the stock.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  83. Optional? by ^_^x · · Score: 1

    All motherboards? And if we want one with a cheaper, normal-sized BIOS?
    I haven't followed this much, but I doubt it's going to cram into 256k? Linux may be free, but I don't want to pay for the hardware to support a feature if I'm not using it, and there must be some licensing fees?

    Everything Asus?

    Ah well, the last couple I bought had nasty deal breaking flaws anyway and I've stopped buying them so I guess it doesn't affect me, but I am a bit surprised they'd do it so unilaterally.

  84. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Darby · · Score: 1


    Cherry-picking values to show what you want to see != "roller coaster decline."


    Ahhh, you were thinking of a big rollercoaster at a major amusement park. He was thinking of the little one at his local county fair.

  85. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by f8l_0e · · Score: 1

    There's a problem with that solution. If your host OS has been infected with keylogging malware, your keystrokes to the virtual OS are being intercepted anyway.

  86. leave me bi. OS. by tapr00t · · Score: 1
    er, any one mention security yet? from the article:

    "SplashTop works within the motherboards BIOS and can be REMOTLY updated so that as the development community starts to work on applications the functionality of the OS will improve." hope some 'restore defaults' jumper is planed.

    Yes, Walter, you're right. There is an unspoken message here. It's "FUCK YOU, LEAVE MY BIOS THE FUCK ALONE!" Yeah, I'll be at practice.

  87. P.O.S. by tepples · · Score: 1

    Probably as soon as they can get vista to fit in 1gb of flash memory, make it boot instantly, be cheap, and not be a POS... At this point, I wouldn't even trust Windows Vista to be a POS.
  88. Somehow this reminds me of something, but what ? by sxpert · · Score: 1

    ah, yeah, now I remember... coreboot

  89. It's cheap and you can't reach the motherboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROM is cheap. Why not do it?
    SD card readers are removable devices. You don't put them on the motherboard.

  90. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    What do you bet M$ will make sure it can't handle NTFS?

    If you can insmod, and the kernel is new enough, you can load fuse and ntfs-3g.

    It might not do it out of the box but it will be an easy download.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  91. linux users reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well ok first of all i use linux and only linux and i almost never turn off my system or reboot so whats faster than moving your mouse and having the screen come alive?
    second.. wtf? i dont want to have to use my mouse to decide to start my os when i do actually reboot my pc i want it to just do what its supposed to do and boot up my system.
    third, without having a 'real' way of altering this splashtop thing or whatever it is to really suit my needs, its just wasted flash space on my system

    i definitely think this is a step in the right direction for hardware manufacturers, but in the video i saw demonstrating this 'os,' there didnt seem to be hardware diagnostic tools. thats not to say it doesnt have them or the potential to have them, i just didnt see them so it looks like a waste of time..
    dont forget you sit there and chat to someone and they'll be like "hey check out this ________" and then send you a file. what are you going to do with it? store it where? open it with what? can you listen to your music? even if im only on my system 5 minutes i've usually got some sort of music going.. you end up using this for a few minutes then go wtf i cant do this or that and switch to whatever os you installed and probably never end up going back to this splashtop thing thereby rendering it useless

    keep up the good work asus!

  92. worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so with the asus eeepc, users find its worth sacrificing features for a sweet price right?

    well is it worth it to sacrifice almost every good feature of your normal os for a 25sec boot time difference?

    seems like it will take longer to load my os if i boot this splash thing first, then realize i need full features and have to log out and then into my real system...

  93. OK - XP, rather than Vista by goldcd · · Score: 1

    but Bart PE - http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/ - quite happily boots off a CD

    1. Re:OK - XP, rather than Vista by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      That's a very good point. The reason I said Vista was that I'd seriously doubt MS would put any more effort into XP. They tend to want to simply ignore, as much as possible, everything that isn't the most recent release.

  94. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by drsquare · · Score: 1

    Because even though people will now have the option of booting into an instant on linux desktop - 99% will wait 10 minutes to get into vista just to check their email and play on the internet anyway.
    What other option do they have, considering that the Linux installation more than likely won't have modem drivers or firmware, rendering e-mail checking and internet playing impossible?
  95. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by mgblst · · Score: 1

    Price and Security. A ROM image cannot be changed. And it is a lot cheaper.

  96. why by unity100 · · Score: 1

    with this, we wont need to take any of those measures anymore. how many times did you fry your bios ?

  97. I run Firefox on Linux.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    And have not changed the user-agent identifier at all, actually I have never done it, I put my custom or visit where my beliefs are.

    Now it is almost impossible to find a site that does not work satisfactorily with Firefox/Linux and the basic plugins (Flash, Java).

    I urge everybody to try this, you will be pleasantly surprised while sending a clear messages to dumb designers out there.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  98. Re:Ok this is good... Now I have a couple of quest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who is constantly reminded of IBM's fall from grace, when I look at MS?

    Jx

  99. That makes no sense. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    By switching to Linux for desktop computing needs you are left with tons of money (no Office, no Windows, no antivirus, no firewall, etc) that you can use to have a proper gaming machine.

    I don't think you are as well informed as you claim, maybe snob and pretentious when it comes to gaming, but not well informed and certainly not financially astute.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  100. Re:Still don't see the point of burning it into RO by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

    And then 5 seconds later the worm du jour will root the box with the exact same vulnerability as last time because, you guessed it, a read only OS cannot be patched.

    Granted, this distro won't have any servers running on it, but you'll have skype, firefox, IM, all running the exact same widely distributed version. You can bet exploit writers will target those versions very hard.

    So, yeah, trust it for banking, but only for about a month after they are released. After that, install a desktop linux and keep it patched.

  101. Do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Teh Lunix STILL has less than a 1% marketshare, despite 15 years of claiming to be the superior platform... I'd say the rate of new Lunix users is approximately equal to the number of people leaving the platform, with enough of an increase to maintain the flat percentage of an expanding market.

    At 0.63% of the market, more people are using Windows 2000 than Teh Lunix, and it's barely even beating out the current installed base of Windows 98. People have also been migrating en masse from Teh Lunix to Windows Server.

    Stay the Course!

    Like Fake Steve Jobs says, it's not that Microsoft is full of super-geniuses or something, it's that they've always been very fortunate in their choice of enemies.

  102. Linux boot time: Puppy Linux better! by omz · · Score: 1

    I boot Puppy linux in less than 10 seconds, faster than splashtop. No rocket science here :-) Go Puppy!

  103. But will it be open source ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tralalalalala

  104. coreboot please? by obi · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have a motherboard manufacturer that properly supports www.coreboot.org - then we'd really have the freedom to quick boot linux, or use openfirmware, or jump straight into grub without touching the disk, or ...

    Right now, it seems some manufacturers (Tyan, MSI) help out a bit for some types of motherboards, because it might help them sell some clusters. But it would be nice to have the option on the latest/greatest desktop boards too.