The linux distros shipped with netbooks were generally pretty shit, most of the manufacturers tried to roll their own custom distros so they were all different and all with various problems and virtually no third party software.
And netbooks today aren't what they were, specs, size and prices are gradually being pushed up largely to accomodate the bloat associated with windows and cover its additional cost.
Yeah the return rates on those things must be extremely high, all the marketing suggests that it runs "windows" making people think its a very cheap version of all the other laptops/netbooks out there, when the reality is a pretty useless os with a windows like interface. I think such machines would do much better running linux, like the original netbooks, its made clear that it wont run windows software but it still has a good selection of familiar applications available (eg firefox etc) and is very cheap.
Was that startup time measured from power to seeing the desktop, or from pressing power to the desktop becoming usable... windows tends to display the desktop but thrash around a lot and behave oddly for the first few minutes (eg your trying to access something in the start menu, but the menu disappears as your using it for no apparent reason, or it simply ignores your selection)
Not so much about the low spec nature of them, but to keep the prices down.. MS responded by offering XP extremely cheaply, but more recently have been cranking the prices up... You can no longer buy the really cheap netbooks anymore, even the entry level models these days cost more than the original ones.
Those small vendors like windows, its difficult/cumbersome to use, difficult to install, easy to break, has no simple method of installing software and needs lots of extra software to be remotely useful.
As a consequence, customers keep coming back to buy more software, or to have various things fixed.
Linux typically comes with a whole bundle of useful software and a trivial way to get more, is far less susceptible to being broken or infested with malware and rarely needs reinstalling.
I bought one of the eee netbooks with linux preinstalled, the biggest problem was that the preinstalled distro was garbage and this gave people a poor impression of linux.
Well it's not that there never could be evidence of god, if god does exist and possesses the powers various religions claim that he does, then he could very easily prove his existence should he want to, and faced with undeniable proof most agnostics would be forced to start believing.
It seems as if ARM will be doing to Intel and AMD what they themselves did to the traditional high end RISC architectures...
General mass market devices will end up going ARM, because ARM chips now offer enough performance for most peoples day to day computing needs while offering low power consumption (and the things that go along with it such as low noise, low heat output, long battery life and low running costs)... Intel and AMD will be pushed upmarket into highend workstations, highend servers and other areas where performance matters more than cost or power usage.
The problem with this is the corporate mentality of banks, they don't know anything but windows and some (far less than a few years ago) won't even let you access them from a linux based livecd environment. Several banks i can think of even provide an activex based application for their online banking, possibly one of the least secure technologies ever developed.
However, someone has to have admin authority. Do we trust Apple and Microsoft 100% with it? Do we trust the cellular carriers or the phone makers 100% never to do anything like pushing out code behind our backs, or removing features to charge for them?
Which is exactly why we need competition, a controlled system would be absolutely horrendous if it was controlled by a single entity or a self serving cartel... We need choices for who manages systems, ranging from big multinationals like Apple, your local computer store, the it dept at your company, a non profit, even your geeky friends or relatives...
It's a good idea, but only when combined with competition...
Putting everything in the hands of microsoft would be an absolutely terrible idea, but having multiple locked down devices catering to average users would be far better, and then you could still have other providers producing equipment for the geek niche market....
Look at android for a good example, the average consumer buys a locked down phone while people who understand and can take advantage of a rooted android device can either buy handsets like the nexus one or jump through hoops to unlock other devices. There are a whole host of devices available so you aren't forced to place your trust in a particular vendor.
The walled garden approach (eg apple) works well for average users... Linux distros with trusted repositories are a good idea too, the average user still receives the protection of getting all their software from a known trusted source while advanced users still have the flexibility available.
End users should not have root or equivalent access, they should only be able to install software from trusted sources and should defer to a third party (either someone they know, or a paid service etc) for anything more advanced.
These people are not the problem, the idea of giving such people full access to a full blown computer connected to a public network and running a fully fledged os designed to make such things trivial is the problem...
You don't let people drive cars, fly aircraft or do various other things unless they have received proper training, and using a computer should be no different. Such users don't need a full blown computer, they need a simplified appliance that is controlled by someone else (who knows what they're doing)... This is part of the appeal of apple's walled garden.
My grandparents have a linux box, it runs the apps they want (browser, manage photos and videos, im client, email client, music and video player) and if they want anything else they can acquire it from the ubuntu repository... They can install apps from the repositories, but can't add new repositories or execute anything they might download by hand. I configured the system and provide support and maintenance if necessary, so far it hasn't been. If they received a notice telling them their machine had malware installed and asked them to input card details, the first thing they would do is call me. For people without technically literate grandkids, there should be paid services like this.
I would say that was extremely unfriendly to noobs, it makes it far too easy to destroy data... They should support as many partition types as possible, even if only to the extent of being able to say there is data there and warning users against overwriting it. But in typical MS fashion, they don't bother supporting anything other than their own stuff unless absolutely forced to, be it partition types, filesystems, file formats or network protocols.
Also pretty retarded to depend on the firmware to read a partition table... The firmware's ability to read partitions should only matter at boot time, once your OS has booted it should take over. Linux can read all kinds of exotic partition table types regardless of what hardware it runs on.
Not all ISPS use the BT backhaul, there are plenty of LLU providers too. As for the BT backhaul supporting v6 - it doesn't need to, all it does is tunnel a PPP session from the DSLAM to the reseller's (isp) server... What you run over that PPP session is irrelevant, you could even run non IP protocols over it. The only lack of v6 support is that BT will only peer with the isp over v4 but that just means the tunnel endpoint needs a v4 address.
As for v6 support, off the top of my head:
goscomb.net nitrex.net (which i'm using right now) andrews&arnold (aaisp.net.uk) public internet entanet (they support v6 but don't advertise the fact, you have to explicitly ask)
There may well be others too. V6 is not really in demand right now so few isps bother to advertise support for it.. Also, you might have a hard job finding a router that supports it, none of the consumer level stuff does so you're stuck with either something linux based (where you may have to build your own kernel) or cisco.
They should simply mandate that anyone providing internet connectivity (ie any isp or telco) MUST provide ipv6, either alongside or instead of ipv4. If every end user and every site they try to visit is dual stack, a lot of traffic will occur over ipv6 without users even realising it and ipv4 will gradually die out.
So switch ISPs, there are several who support it... If people start asking for ipv6 and moving isps to get it then others might follow suit and start offering it.. I know of several isps who do have ipv6 but don't advertise it anywhere because they don't see any demand.
Generally linux distributions follow a fairly standard naming/location convention for files, most of the variations exist in specialised linux distributions (eg android) where there is good reason for the differences. Most software also allows you to choose where to install it at compile time, although the default will usually be/usr/local.
A linux system is often far less messy than a windows system for instance, where all kinds of files are under the windows and system32 dirs.
Package managers are actually a very good solution to many problems, not only do they handle dependencies but they provide a centralised database of installed software, a file integrity database (both on the system - storing checksums of everything, and off system because the checksums corresponding to a given package versions files are known), clean removal of software, a single place and standardised interface for installing software (thus removing the need to download programs from potentially untrustworthy websites - you only have to trust your os vendor, not hundreds of third parties) and most important of all, a centralised update mechanism for applying important security patches to all of your software...
Other software vendors have chosen different methods to try and resolve the same problems, but most of them are lacking in one way or another, or make different compromises...
The OSX method of program bundles avoids dependency problems, but introduces the inefficiency of reducing code sharing, this has less impact on closed source software where code is rarely shared anyway, but for open source one of the key advantages of the open development model is reduced by this approach. On the other hand, this method does provide clean removal and makes it easy to have multiple versions of something installed.
The Windows method is rather chaotic, individual programs are expected to create their own installation and removal programs as well as handle their own update mechanisms, this has resulted in a whole range of software which behaves in different ways, stores files in different places etc... Update mechanisms and uninstall routines are down to the individual application and may not exist at all, or may not work correctly. This has resulted in lots of very poorly behaved software which assumes you are a privileged user and can write to system locations, and subsequently in order to retain compatibility microsoft have been forced to implement all kinds of dirty kludges to make such applications think they are able to write to system dirs when they can't.
The only potential downside to the linux system, is that application suppliers don't have a fixed list of system libraries which will always be present. Under OSX or Windows you know that a core set of libraries will always be there, and anything else is typically provided by the app (sometimes redundantly), whereas different linux distributions may provide different base libraries.
Then use a more cutting edge distro like gentoo...
Ubuntu is aimed at casual users (and servers for the LTS version), these users don't want bleeding edge, they want stuff that works reliably and is tried and tested. Business users especially are extremely conservative and will often explicitly choose software which is years out of date.
Now it depends on your needs, if your constantly building stuff from git/cpan it sounds like your intentionally living on the bleeding edge and/or doing development... For most users, and especially production servers having non cutting edge packages managed centrally is far more desirable. Personally when i want cutting edge i use gentoo, so i can have installed a mix of stable core packages with a select few being cutting edge versions while still being package managed. If i want to install something not covered by the package system (which is quite rare with all the gentoo overlays available) i can build my own package quite easily which makes it easy to replace if a newer package comes out later.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems there are twofold...
The linux distros shipped with netbooks were generally pretty shit, most of the manufacturers tried to roll their own custom distros so they were all different and all with various problems and virtually no third party software.
And netbooks today aren't what they were, specs, size and prices are gradually being pushed up largely to accomodate the bloat associated with windows and cover its additional cost.
Yeah the return rates on those things must be extremely high, all the marketing suggests that it runs "windows" making people think its a very cheap version of all the other laptops/netbooks out there, when the reality is a pretty useless os with a windows like interface.
I think such machines would do much better running linux, like the original netbooks, its made clear that it wont run windows software but it still has a good selection of familiar applications available (eg firefox etc) and is very cheap.
Was that startup time measured from power to seeing the desktop, or from pressing power to the desktop becoming usable... windows tends to display the desktop but thrash around a lot and behave oddly for the first few minutes (eg your trying to access something in the start menu, but the menu disappears as your using it for no apparent reason, or it simply ignores your selection)
Not so much about the low spec nature of them, but to keep the prices down.. MS responded by offering XP extremely cheaply, but more recently have been cranking the prices up... You can no longer buy the really cheap netbooks anymore, even the entry level models these days cost more than the original ones.
Those small vendors like windows, its difficult/cumbersome to use, difficult to install, easy to break, has no simple method of installing software and needs lots of extra software to be remotely useful.
As a consequence, customers keep coming back to buy more software, or to have various things fixed.
Linux typically comes with a whole bundle of useful software and a trivial way to get more, is far less susceptible to being broken or infested with malware and rarely needs reinstalling.
It looks like the wireless just uses WPA2 enterprise with certificates for auth, you should be able to import them into linux just fine...
I bought one of the eee netbooks with linux preinstalled, the biggest problem was that the preinstalled distro was garbage and this gave people a poor impression of linux.
With infinite power, he could merely alter your mind to make you believe...
Although you do have a point, science today would appear to be godlike powers to someone living 2000 years ago.
Well it's not that there never could be evidence of god, if god does exist and possesses the powers various religions claim that he does, then he could very easily prove his existence should he want to, and faced with undeniable proof most agnostics would be forced to start believing.
It seems as if ARM will be doing to Intel and AMD what they themselves did to the traditional high end RISC architectures...
General mass market devices will end up going ARM, because ARM chips now offer enough performance for most peoples day to day computing needs while offering low power consumption (and the things that go along with it such as low noise, low heat output, long battery life and low running costs)... Intel and AMD will be pushed upmarket into highend workstations, highend servers and other areas where performance matters more than cost or power usage.
The problem with this is the corporate mentality of banks, they don't know anything but windows and some (far less than a few years ago) won't even let you access them from a linux based livecd environment.
Several banks i can think of even provide an activex based application for their online banking, possibly one of the least secure technologies ever developed.
However, someone has to have admin authority. Do we trust Apple and Microsoft 100% with it? Do we trust the cellular carriers or the phone makers 100% never to do anything like pushing out code behind our backs, or removing features to charge for them?
Which is exactly why we need competition, a controlled system would be absolutely horrendous if it was controlled by a single entity or a self serving cartel... We need choices for who manages systems, ranging from big multinationals like Apple, your local computer store, the it dept at your company, a non profit, even your geeky friends or relatives...
Because people shouldn't be expected to require such a level of knowledge to use a consumer grade product...
Basically, windows isn't ready for typical users, the closest anyone has got is iOS...
It's a good idea, but only when combined with competition...
Putting everything in the hands of microsoft would be an absolutely terrible idea, but having multiple locked down devices catering to average users would be far better, and then you could still have other providers producing equipment for the geek niche market....
Look at android for a good example, the average consumer buys a locked down phone while people who understand and can take advantage of a rooted android device can either buy handsets like the nexus one or jump through hoops to unlock other devices. There are a whole host of devices available so you aren't forced to place your trust in a particular vendor.
The walled garden approach (eg apple) works well for average users...
Linux distros with trusted repositories are a good idea too, the average user still receives the protection of getting all their software from a known trusted source while advanced users still have the flexibility available.
End users should not have root or equivalent access, they should only be able to install software from trusted sources and should defer to a third party (either someone they know, or a paid service etc) for anything more advanced.
These people are not the problem, the idea of giving such people full access to a full blown computer connected to a public network and running a fully fledged os designed to make such things trivial is the problem...
You don't let people drive cars, fly aircraft or do various other things unless they have received proper training, and using a computer should be no different. Such users don't need a full blown computer, they need a simplified appliance that is controlled by someone else (who knows what they're doing)... This is part of the appeal of apple's walled garden.
My grandparents have a linux box, it runs the apps they want (browser, manage photos and videos, im client, email client, music and video player) and if they want anything else they can acquire it from the ubuntu repository... They can install apps from the repositories, but can't add new repositories or execute anything they might download by hand. I configured the system and provide support and maintenance if necessary, so far it hasn't been. If they received a notice telling them their machine had malware installed and asked them to input card details, the first thing they would do is call me.
For people without technically literate grandkids, there should be paid services like this.
Isn't that pretty much what kinect is?
I would say that was extremely unfriendly to noobs, it makes it far too easy to destroy data...
They should support as many partition types as possible, even if only to the extent of being able to say there is data there and warning users against overwriting it.
But in typical MS fashion, they don't bother supporting anything other than their own stuff unless absolutely forced to, be it partition types, filesystems, file formats or network protocols.
Also pretty retarded to depend on the firmware to read a partition table... The firmware's ability to read partitions should only matter at boot time, once your OS has booted it should take over. Linux can read all kinds of exotic partition table types regardless of what hardware it runs on.
Not all ISPS use the BT backhaul, there are plenty of LLU providers too. As for the BT backhaul supporting v6 - it doesn't need to, all it does is tunnel a PPP session from the DSLAM to the reseller's (isp) server... What you run over that PPP session is irrelevant, you could even run non IP protocols over it. The only lack of v6 support is that BT will only peer with the isp over v4 but that just means the tunnel endpoint needs a v4 address.
As for v6 support, off the top of my head:
goscomb.net
nitrex.net (which i'm using right now)
andrews&arnold (aaisp.net.uk)
public internet
entanet (they support v6 but don't advertise the fact, you have to explicitly ask)
There may well be others too. V6 is not really in demand right now so few isps bother to advertise support for it..
Also, you might have a hard job finding a router that supports it, none of the consumer level stuff does so you're stuck with either something linux based (where you may have to build your own kernel) or cisco.
They should simply mandate that anyone providing internet connectivity (ie any isp or telco) MUST provide ipv6, either alongside or instead of ipv4.
If every end user and every site they try to visit is dual stack, a lot of traffic will occur over ipv6 without users even realising it and ipv4 will gradually die out.
So switch ISPs, there are several who support it... If people start asking for ipv6 and moving isps to get it then others might follow suit and start offering it.. I know of several isps who do have ipv6 but don't advertise it anywhere because they don't see any demand.
Generally linux distributions follow a fairly standard naming/location convention for files, most of the variations exist in specialised linux distributions (eg android) where there is good reason for the differences. /usr/local.
Most software also allows you to choose where to install it at compile time, although the default will usually be
A linux system is often far less messy than a windows system for instance, where all kinds of files are under the windows and system32 dirs.
Package managers are actually a very good solution to many problems, not only do they handle dependencies but they provide a centralised database of installed software, a file integrity database (both on the system - storing checksums of everything, and off system because the checksums corresponding to a given package versions files are known), clean removal of software, a single place and standardised interface for installing software (thus removing the need to download programs from potentially untrustworthy websites - you only have to trust your os vendor, not hundreds of third parties) and most important of all, a centralised update mechanism for applying important security patches to all of your software...
Other software vendors have chosen different methods to try and resolve the same problems, but most of them are lacking in one way or another, or make different compromises...
The OSX method of program bundles avoids dependency problems, but introduces the inefficiency of reducing code sharing, this has less impact on closed source software where code is rarely shared anyway, but for open source one of the key advantages of the open development model is reduced by this approach. On the other hand, this method does provide clean removal and makes it easy to have multiple versions of something installed.
The Windows method is rather chaotic, individual programs are expected to create their own installation and removal programs as well as handle their own update mechanisms, this has resulted in a whole range of software which behaves in different ways, stores files in different places etc... Update mechanisms and uninstall routines are down to the individual application and may not exist at all, or may not work correctly. This has resulted in lots of very poorly behaved software which assumes you are a privileged user and can write to system locations, and subsequently in order to retain compatibility microsoft have been forced to implement all kinds of dirty kludges to make such applications think they are able to write to system dirs when they can't.
The only potential downside to the linux system, is that application suppliers don't have a fixed list of system libraries which will always be present. Under OSX or Windows you know that a core set of libraries will always be there, and anything else is typically provided by the app (sometimes redundantly), whereas different linux distributions may provide different base libraries.
Then use a more cutting edge distro like gentoo...
Ubuntu is aimed at casual users (and servers for the LTS version), these users don't want bleeding edge, they want stuff that works reliably and is tried and tested. Business users especially are extremely conservative and will often explicitly choose software which is years out of date.
Now it depends on your needs, if your constantly building stuff from git/cpan it sounds like your intentionally living on the bleeding edge and/or doing development...
For most users, and especially production servers having non cutting edge packages managed centrally is far more desirable. Personally when i want cutting edge i use gentoo, so i can have installed a mix of stable core packages with a select few being cutting edge versions while still being package managed. If i want to install something not covered by the package system (which is quite rare with all the gentoo overlays available) i can build my own package quite easily which makes it easy to replace if a newer package comes out later.