Re:Enhanced KDE 2.2? I have that!
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
the UI has made a lot of progress since 2.x....
While I'm certainly a big KDE3 fan, let's be honest (at the risk of being modded down as flamebait). Can you actually list offhand all the progress that KDE3 has over KDE2?
Okay, so it has a few nicer-looking themes, but let's think more about substance - Xandros isn't going for all-out flash. KDE3's got a better version of Konqueror, but that's not so important given that most Linux desktops use Mozilla. KDE3 has better printer support and an improved file manager, but Xandros has already heavily modified the file manager anyway, and it's not hard to imagine them including a printer setup wizard. Improvements to KOffice are kind of irrelevant given that this comes with CrossOver Office. Multimedia stuff (Noatun, etc.) - not important, there are non-KDE apps that can do much better still. Basically all that it's missing is a bit of a speed boost and some changes to KDE-PIM.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that KDE2 is better in any way, just that if Xandros has already put this much work into KDE2 to improve it, then it's not so bad that they're sticking with it rather than going with a more vanilla version of KDE3.
Re:What about GPL?? Sources??
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 1
If someone buys the $99 dollar copy, then posts the binaries and sources on his website for free download, that would be fine, but so far, nobody has done that, so you must pay $99 dollars if you want it. GPL isn't free beer.
I think the catch here is that the software includes a bunch of proprietary, non-GPL software (I'm pretty sure that Crossover Office/Plugin both include some closed-source components, right?). So a person couldn't even legally post the entire distro on his website.
You missed the plan: ...
this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft.
Actually, I think the original poster got it right. The plan according to Slashdot's editors seems to be as you said, but of course we can't rely on the editors, and it appears that many posters, like the editors, failed to read the article. The article clearly states:
The twist is that Green has no intention of implementing these techniques himself -- and in an interview with Wired News, declared his intention to "aggressively enforce his patents," if granted, to prevent anyone else from doing so.
"Aggressively enforce" makes it sound like he's actually trying to do something more than just discreditting a company that's already been discreditted hundreds of times before.
For what it's worth, Slashdot also picked this up in the beginning of September, though in typical Slashdot style they seem to have only mentioned Maxtor.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/05/204724 9
The Gamecube is often considered to be more "family-oriented" than the PS2 or XBox, but I think Nintendo has recently been trying to shed this reputation to make its system more appealing to an older audience. Think about the recent Gamecube advertising campaign. This game, and the publicity that comes with it, would seem to fit that trend rather nicely.
The irony about moves like this is that AOL, in trying to destroy Peng, has instead just brought it to the attention of thousands of people just like you. Instead of helping a few users get around AOL's bloated interface, it can now help hundreds. Plus, since it's open-source, I think it's probably a safe assumption that it is here to stay - even if AOL's pressure scares the author into stopping his work on the program, the source is still out there, and now thousands of Slashdot-readers know about it and are interested in it.
Yet another example of how (surprise, surprise) big companies like AOL Just Don't Get It.
I was very close to using my last mod point to mod the parent down as flamebait because of that line, but decided it would be more constructive to reply.
There are a handful of other distros that do what Gentoo does, and some might argue that they do a better job of it (I won't get into that).
1. Source Mage - The evolution of Sorceror after it's original maintainer ran off, has been doing this for nearly as long as Gentoo (maybe longer even? It's close). Instead of "emerge gnome" you'd say "cast gnome", but other than that it's more or less the same thing - download, configure, compile, install with one command. It's all coded in very elegant and easy-to-understand bash scripts, which is kind of neat, but other than that it's very comparable to Gentoo. I believe they plan to release 1.0 on Halloween.
2. Other source-based distros - there are two other Sorceror-based distros besides Source Mage - Lunar and the non-free Sorceror. Personally I'd suggest sticking with the above if you want to go with a Sorceror-evolved distro though. I think there's also Rock Linux but I don't know much about that.
3. Debian. Apt-get downloads and configures and installs programs, but you save hours and hours on the compilation step by using binaries. Or you can use apt-src and go through with the compilation. Personally, I found that it was not worth the time to compile everything when Debian works just as well if not better, has a far more reliable, well-established testing system, and stays nearly as up-to-date (if you use sid, the "unstable" branch, which I've found to be more stable than any of the source-based distros). As for the alleged speed gain in compiling, that is more of a theoretical claim than a number-supported one, and I honestly do not notice a difference.
Parent - keep in mind that it is never a safe thing to say definitively "no other..." or "never" or any kind of all-encompassing statement - you're asking to be disproven. Certainly Gentoo is a nice distro, but let's not be close-minded about it.
Re:Good for linux(?), probably not good for Sun
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 1
but how do you define "good luck"?
Uh, lets see, sales??
You're missing the point. Sun can benefit from this even if it does not sell tons of units (and, *gasp*, loses money). The long-term benefits of showing that there are legitimate alternatives to Microsoft are more important to Sun. I hate to use a cliché, but Sun is clearly trying to invest in a future.
DAMN! I forgot about the 3 posts replying to the predictions with things I forgot.
---
Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have made your post if I hadn't said anything?
Okay, time to predict the responses. In this discussion, there will be:
13 posts about how it dumb it is that this looks so much like Windows.
5 of which will also predict the death of Linux on the desktop.
21 responses to those posts about how looking like Windows is a good thing.
18 posts suggesting alternate desktop-oriented distros, including Mandrake, Red Hat, Lycoris, and Xandros.
7 responses to those posts claiming that Debian is far better.
5 responses to the Debian posts about source based distributions like Gentoo and Source Mage being far more up-to-date and superior.
14 posts will praise Lindows for being easy-to-use and with plans (that will not actually happen) to install it for their parents.
8 of those will commend the new networking setup and resolution switcher and wonder why other distros haven't done these things yet.
5 people will explain that other distros HAVE done that.
3 posts will make fun of the name Lindows. 6 will ask about if the Windows emulation actually works (nobody will have a supported answer). 5 posts will question if this release is truly worthy of being called "version 2.0.0". 4 posts will point out that you can buy computers with Lindows preinstalled from Wal-mart. 6 posts will offer mirrors of the screenshots/article.
Of the 17 posts modded up to 4 or 5, at least 13 will begin with the phrase "I'll probably get modded down for this, but..."
And finally, there will be THIS post, which tries to redeem itself for being dumb with a self-deprecating final statement.
Does anyone else find it odd that the Reuters report categorizes itself as "Breaking News" (see titlebar of the article) when it is not much more than a rehashed press release? (Or perhaps more accurately, a preview of a press release.)
In the news today, the US declared war on...
Hold on, we have some BREAKING NEWS. I'm being told that Sun will soon be showing plans for a low-cost Linux-based PC!!!
Re:Good for linux(?), probably not good for Sun
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 1
The difference between your thinking and Sun's is in the way that you are evaluating success. You say:
They haven't had good luck in this market. but how do you define "good luck"? It seems that you think good luck means selling more boxes than Dell, Compaq, etc. However, this is where you're wrong. Remember, you said that Sun is trying to "push an agenda". Well, in order to push this agenda, they don't have to outsell the big boys, they just have to help establish that there are legitimate alternatives. The more people see Office suites that aren't made by Microsoft or computers that work great that don't have Windows, the more people will begin to realize that there is a reason to adopt the open standards that Sun is pushing.
So basically, perhaps what you consider a failure, Sun would consider a small (but important) step forward toward legitimacy and therefore openness.
know anyone who's bought a desktop that didnt come with Windows in their lifetime?
Sure. Anyone who built their computer or got a custom one built at a local "mom and pop" shop. From what I understand, Microsoft has cut down on piracy in these situations quite a bit, so generally these places will add about $100 or so to your computer's cost for Windows.
I won't even bother mentioning those Wal-mart Microtel computers...
You make some very good points. Indeed, Windows' stability has increased to a great extent with 2k and XP, perhaps to the point where stability will cease to be an issue. Still, the majority of Windows users are still probably using an older version of Windows with their 2-3 year-old desktop machines, and are in no rush to buy a new computer. If they wanted to get a more stable operating system, they could pay for a Windows XP upgrade (and add more memory to handle the increased load), or they could get a copy of Linux for significantly cheaper (free, even).
As for users who plan to buy a new computer, unfortunately they do not have a whole lot of options. If they get a computer from Dell, you're right, the "Microsoft tax" isn't very high. However, a surprisingly large percentage of people (I wish I had the actual numbers, but I recall it being far higher than I would have expected) buy custom-built machines from neighborhood computer stores, where, assuming the store does not use a pirated copy of Windows, they would likely have to pay a lot closer to the full cost of the OS. Not to mention paying for any additional software the vendor would like to load on, like Office. With computers frequently costing under $500, this can still make up a very significant part of the cost. Of course, if Microsoft ends up freeing their OS, then Linux will be in a lot of trouble, but I don't think we're at a point where we can consider Windows completely free yet. Oh, and as far as small and large businesses are concerned, here the Microsoft tax becomes even more significant. These businesses have to pay for hundreds of Windows licenses (or perhaps there is some kind of expensive "business license" - I'm not sure, but either way it still applies). A single license is all it would take to get Linux on as many computers as the business needs. There have been many case studies about how Linux can save businesses large amounts of money.
Finally, you suggest that the best three arguments for Linux are flexibility, openness, and security. While these are clearly crucial advantages, their importance is not very apparent to Joe User who wants a new desktop OS. He does not notice the flexibility and will likely stick with default settings, he does not care about openness if Microsoft's closed protocols are so widely supported anyway, and while we may be able to scare him into worrying about security, the truth is there is no critical data that needs to be protected on most home users' machines, and they are not going to be running any servers. Unfortunately, I think the importance of these advantages is not significant enough to a typical home user.
Offhand, I can think of a couple more things that have not yet been mentioned by either of us that might be more persuasive - the first is the whole concept of EULA's. While most users don't really understand the significance of EULA's, it seems like it would be pretty easy to show them that they are "selling their souls to the devil" - most people don't like having to agree to pages and pages of fine print, and a rights-protecting license like the GPL might be attractive to them. Also, I'm not sure if this has been significantly improved with 2k/XP, but I know that most 9x users would be happy to hear that they don't have to worry about rebooting their machines with every change they make. I recently helped someone format their hard drive and reinstall Win98, and it must have taken at least 9 or 10 reboots before we had the machine at a good state. I mentioned how you never have to deal with rebooting in Linux and he seemed quite interested. Of course, I don't think he was ready for Linux, and Linux isn't ready for him, so I didn't install it (for one, he uses AOL, which he could not do with Linux - not to mention the fact that I did not want to have to be his personal tech support bitch for the next year).
...but why is it that every Linux Desktop Environment invariably looks like Windows 98?
Keep in mind that the primary advantage of Linux is definitely not beautiful looks. When I mention Linux to people, the reasons are usually more focused on its stability or, perhaps even more importantly, its cost. The fact that you can get an OS that comes with tons of software preloaded for half the price of a far more stripped down one like Windows is pretty significant.
So, with that in mind, why make it look like Windows 98? Well, Windows 98 is what the majority of computer users are used to, so why not make it something that won't take a lot of adjusting for them. Plus, what exactly is wrong with the way Windows 98 looks? (Remember, the main problems with Windows are its instability and its expensive cost, not its ugliness - I think it's a pretty nice looking, easy to use operating system). It makes sense to model a GUI after Windows.
And then of course, that other advantage of Linux comes into play - customizability. If you don't like the standard, you can definitely change it. KDE is pretty Windows-like, but there are tons of other Window managers that are quite unique-looking, and you can set up KDE to look more like Mac OS (with a menubar at the top) if that is what you prefer. Personally, though, I don't think the single menu-bar makes a lot of sense, despite what all those "UI-experts" claim. Yeah, sure you get the advantage of being able to move your mouse to the menu really fast, but if you're going for speed, you should be using keyboard shortcuts. Generally the menu is for more obscure functions that you only use once in a while. And it just seems to make a lot more sense to have a menu contained in the application - Mac's approach seems to discourage multitasking, by forcing you to pick one window that has to be on top.
The point is not that you know what Mozilla looks like, it's that the target audience of this distro may not. Thusly, I would show them the nicest, prettiest skin I can dig up. Remember, this website may be all a newb ever sees of your distro. Might as well make it as appealing as possible, right?
I understand where you're coming from, but still, I think that if Mozilla really looks that bad by default, maybe the makers of Mozilla should consider changing the default skin, or maybe the makers of the distribution should configure it to come shipped with a better skin. I wish I had an actual statistic for this, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of newbies would never even consider changing the way anything on their computer looks - even their desktop - let alone changing their browser's skin. While you and I may love customizability, most newbies don't care (or don't know any better) and just stick with the defaults.
Of course, my only knowledge of this distro is entirely based on what the article says, but I'd like to mention a few comments/questions that came to mind when reading the article...
it successfully installed Xandros on my 3 GB partition on my hdc10 after a 20 minutes installation process via my 4x/32x DVD drive
If that 20 minute figure is true, I must say that's pretty incredible. Does anyone else find it a bit suspicious? I would've thought that installing all the packages alone would take at least a half hour, not to mention going through all the configuration questions. Can someone verify that it really is that fast?
KDE 2.2.2
I realize the article goes on to say that they are considering a jump to KDE 3.x before the final release, but I think it's odd that a beta distribution would still be using KDE 2.2.2. It seems that they could save themselves a lot of time by making the switch to 3.x as soon as possible, instead of putting that off until closer to the release. Clearly, 3.x is the way to go - it may have a few bugs at the moment, but considering that the distro is still beta, that the bugs will likely be fixed before it is released, and that I have heard almost entirely praise for 3.x (even to the extent that people claim it is faster!), this decision seems like it should be a no-brainer.
The OS by default booted on 1024x768 resolution, but via the Xandros Control Center I could easily change it to 1280x1024x16bpp@85Hz.
Wow - this is a really sweet feature. Something that X has needed for a while now (yes, I realize you can change resolutions with ctrl+alt+num_plus, but this is definitely not intuitive, and does not work as some might like - with virtual screen sizes and whatnot).
Xandros have made some changes to the konqueror's source code.
It seems like their changes should be welcomed by ex-Windows users, and I'd say they look pretty nice. On a side-note, does anyone else feel that Konq's Midnight Commander mode could use some improvement? The original MC clone that I used was on a Windows machine - Windows Commander, and I must say I have yet to find a Linux-based program that I like as much. Of course, maybe that's just because I haven't looked very hard.
Also, the "About KDE" is not there anymore on the KDE applications, but there is an "About Xandros" in place.
Uh oh, this could be trouble. Remember what happened when Red Hat did this recently...
Xandros Update can use both DEB and RPMs packages, and it can connect to both the debian mirrors and automatically download binaries, or connect to the Xandros Networks ftp site for OS updates (even kernel updates).
That is cool, but how well does it work? This seems like it is destined to lead to even worse dependency-hell than most of us have come to expect from Red Hat distros. Why not just go with exclusively DEB packages, given that they tend to work so much better? (hmm, I could get in trouble with that statement...insert joke about debian's datedness here)
there is a CD-burning app includ[ed]
I wonder which app they included for this? I haven't been able to find any easy-to-use CD-burning apps for Linux with features that can compete with Nero for Windows. Specifically, I have yet to find anything that can copy audio-cd's on the fly, which seems like it is one of the main uses for CD burners (for backup purposes, of course!).
Anyway, I hope this distro turns out good, I can't wait til someone comes out with a distro that's simple yet solid enough for me to feel confident recommending it to all my friends/family. While there are many distros that come close, I still would hesitate before recommending any of them to a computer-novice friend.
this may be simplified to the point where the advantages of linuz are lost.
Um, remind me again, since when was the primary advantage of "linuz" its beautiful looks? How about stability, and perhaps even more importantly, cost? If Joe User can get a fully loaded distro for half the cost of Windows (not to mention the included Office suite(s) and other software that Microsoft would have you spending hundreds of dollars on), I think that alone is plenty of incentive. If anything, the similarities to the looks of Windows should help this distro gain converts - the only thing holding most people back is the pain of learning a new system, and hopefully this will help to bridge the gap.
When showing off a new distro, keep the settings at their default. I know what Mozilla looks like already, what I want to see is how the distro sets it up. If Pinball is so much better, then maybe your hint should be targetted at the developers of the distro - especially with a newbie-friendly distro, I doubt those newbies will be downloading custom Mozilla skins. I'll take the screenshots as they are, thank you very much.
BTW, I realize that might have sounded overly harsh, I didn't mean it that way.
Oh, and as a side note, what's wrong with the Modern skin included with Mozilla? I've always been a big fan.
While I definitely would disagree with a decision shutting down these services, I must admit that I'd be somewhat pleased to see them shut down. Presumably, this would cause thousands of new users to migrate to other services - Gnutella, for one. From my self-centered perspective, I'd like to have more people using (and therefore more files being shared on) a network that I too can use (in Linux).
some amusing alternative emoticons...
on
The First Smiley :-)
·
· Score: 2, Funny
About 10 years ago, my dad found a free copy of a book called "The Secret Guide to Computers" by Russ Walter and threw it my way. The book covered lots of stuff - as the cover declares, it "Guides you through all the applications, from 'Accounting' to 'Zany Sex'." It happens to be where I learned my first programming language - BASIC.
Anyway, there was a page about emoticons, listing a bunch of variations on the smiley. It's quite amusing. I was going to put them all here, but the lameness filter isn't letting me, so I'll just post a few highlights to whet your appetite and look for a link (here's one; click Internet in the left frame then search the right frame for "smiley"):
:-)~ I'm drooling. :-)-8 I have big breasts. :*) I'm drunk. %-) I'm dizzy from staring at the screen too long. |-O I'm yawning. |^O I'm snoring. [:-) I'm wearing a Walkman. {:-) I wear a toupee, }:-) but the wind is blowing it off. [:] I'm a robot. }:-> I'm being devilish, >;-> and lewdly winking. E-:-) I'm a ham radio operator. C=:-) I'm a chef. =|:-)= I'm Uncle Sam.
hello..can you say cost? compare Windows XP + Office + Photoshop + whatever to any Linux distro + oh wait the distro already comes with equivilants of all that other stuff.
With computer hardware moving closer and closer to the $100 price point, how can you really justify spending 5 times that on software licenses?
There's a much more important difference than this. With client-server, the server can control how much knowledge and control the client has. For example, the server can keep track of how much ammo you have picked up, and no matter how modified your client is, you cannot add ammo to that count, because the server knows that there's now way you could have gotten more. Same goes for health. Another example would be that the server only has to tell you information about what you can see - so a server couldn't tell you exactly what the other player has done in another room or how much health that player has left - you just trust the server to keep track of it.
Now take peer-to-peer. There is no trust-worthy server to keep track of all the information, so now either each client keeps track of himself (which would allow you to just change the amount of health/ammo you have, for example), or, more likely, each client would share all the information with the other clients, so that now you can't change your own values (other clients are checking you), but your client would have knowledge about everything that all the other clients know (find out stuff that is going on that you shouldn't be able to see). It seems that it would be pretty trivial to add a little display in your HUD which monitors all the other player's remaining health and ammo, so that you would know when is a smart time to attack them and when you should run away and restock.
In either case, of course, aim-hacks are possible. These are a lot harder to prevent, just because they don't really need to do anything special behind-the-scenes; they merely simulate user input with inhuman precision.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm certainly a big KDE3 fan, let's be honest (at the risk of being modded down as flamebait). Can you actually list offhand all the progress that KDE3 has over KDE2?
Okay, so it has a few nicer-looking themes, but let's think more about substance - Xandros isn't going for all-out flash. KDE3's got a better version of Konqueror, but that's not so important given that most Linux desktops use Mozilla. KDE3 has better printer support and an improved file manager, but Xandros has already heavily modified the file manager anyway, and it's not hard to imagine them including a printer setup wizard. Improvements to KOffice are kind of irrelevant given that this comes with CrossOver Office. Multimedia stuff (Noatun, etc.) - not important, there are non-KDE apps that can do much better still. Basically all that it's missing is a bit of a speed boost and some changes to KDE-PIM.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that KDE2 is better in any way, just that if Xandros has already put this much work into KDE2 to improve it, then it's not so bad that they're sticking with it rather than going with a more vanilla version of KDE3.
I think the catch here is that the software includes a bunch of proprietary, non-GPL software (I'm pretty sure that Crossover Office/Plugin both include some closed-source components, right?). So a person couldn't even legally post the entire distro on his website.
...
this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft.
Actually, I think the original poster got it right. The plan according to Slashdot's editors seems to be as you said, but of course we can't rely on the editors, and it appears that many posters, like the editors, failed to read the article. The article clearly states:
"Aggressively enforce" makes it sound like he's actually trying to do something more than just discreditting a company that's already been discreditted hundreds of times before.For what it's worth, Slashdot also picked this up in the beginning of September, though in typical Slashdot style they seem to have only mentioned Maxtor. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/05/204724 9
The Gamecube is often considered to be more "family-oriented" than the PS2 or XBox, but I think Nintendo has recently been trying to shed this reputation to make its system more appealing to an older audience. Think about the recent Gamecube advertising campaign. This game, and the publicity that comes with it, would seem to fit that trend rather nicely.
Holy shit, a computer that can store and display pictures and music?! Unbelievable...where do I get one?
The irony about moves like this is that AOL, in trying to destroy Peng, has instead just brought it to the attention of thousands of people just like you. Instead of helping a few users get around AOL's bloated interface, it can now help hundreds. Plus, since it's open-source, I think it's probably a safe assumption that it is here to stay - even if AOL's pressure scares the author into stopping his work on the program, the source is still out there, and now thousands of Slashdot-readers know about it and are interested in it.
Yet another example of how (surprise, surprise) big companies like AOL Just Don't Get It.
I was very close to using my last mod point to mod the parent down as flamebait because of that line, but decided it would be more constructive to reply.
There are a handful of other distros that do what Gentoo does, and some might argue that they do a better job of it (I won't get into that).
1. Source Mage - The evolution of Sorceror after it's original maintainer ran off, has been doing this for nearly as long as Gentoo (maybe longer even? It's close). Instead of "emerge gnome" you'd say "cast gnome", but other than that it's more or less the same thing - download, configure, compile, install with one command. It's all coded in very elegant and easy-to-understand bash scripts, which is kind of neat, but other than that it's very comparable to Gentoo. I believe they plan to release 1.0 on Halloween.
2. Other source-based distros - there are two other Sorceror-based distros besides Source Mage - Lunar and the non-free Sorceror. Personally I'd suggest sticking with the above if you want to go with a Sorceror-evolved distro though. I think there's also Rock Linux but I don't know much about that.
3. Debian. Apt-get downloads and configures and installs programs, but you save hours and hours on the compilation step by using binaries. Or you can use apt-src and go through with the compilation. Personally, I found that it was not worth the time to compile everything when Debian works just as well if not better, has a far more reliable, well-established testing system, and stays nearly as up-to-date (if you use sid, the "unstable" branch, which I've found to be more stable than any of the source-based distros). As for the alleged speed gain in compiling, that is more of a theoretical claim than a number-supported one, and I honestly do not notice a difference.
Parent - keep in mind that it is never a safe thing to say definitively "no other..." or "never" or any kind of all-encompassing statement - you're asking to be disproven. Certainly Gentoo is a nice distro, but let's not be close-minded about it.
You're missing the point. Sun can benefit from this even if it does not sell tons of units (and, *gasp*, loses money). The long-term benefits of showing that there are legitimate alternatives to Microsoft are more important to Sun. I hate to use a cliché, but Sun is clearly trying to invest in a future.
DAMN! I forgot about the 3 posts replying to the predictions with things I forgot.
---
Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have made your post if I hadn't said anything?
Okay, time to predict the responses.
In this discussion, there will be:
13 posts about how it dumb it is that this looks so much like Windows.
5 of which will also predict the death of Linux on the desktop.
21 responses to those posts about how looking like Windows is a good thing.
18 posts suggesting alternate desktop-oriented distros, including Mandrake, Red Hat, Lycoris, and Xandros.
7 responses to those posts claiming that Debian is far better.
5 responses to the Debian posts about source based distributions like Gentoo and Source Mage being far more up-to-date and superior.
14 posts will praise Lindows for being easy-to-use and with plans (that will not actually happen) to install it for their parents.
8 of those will commend the new networking setup and resolution switcher and wonder why other distros haven't done these things yet.
5 people will explain that other distros HAVE done that.
3 posts will make fun of the name Lindows.
6 will ask about if the Windows emulation actually works (nobody will have a supported answer).
5 posts will question if this release is truly worthy of being called "version 2.0.0".
4 posts will point out that you can buy computers with Lindows preinstalled from Wal-mart.
6 posts will offer mirrors of the screenshots/article.
Of the 17 posts modded up to 4 or 5, at least 13 will begin with the phrase "I'll probably get modded down for this, but..."
And finally, there will be THIS post, which tries to redeem itself for being dumb with a self-deprecating final statement.
In the news today, the US declared war on... Hold on, we have some BREAKING NEWS. I'm being told that Sun will soon be showing plans for a low-cost Linux-based PC!!!
They haven't had good luck in this market.
but how do you define "good luck"? It seems that you think good luck means selling more boxes than Dell, Compaq, etc. However, this is where you're wrong. Remember, you said that Sun is trying to "push an agenda". Well, in order to push this agenda, they don't have to outsell the big boys, they just have to help establish that there are legitimate alternatives. The more people see Office suites that aren't made by Microsoft or computers that work great that don't have Windows, the more people will begin to realize that there is a reason to adopt the open standards that Sun is pushing.
So basically, perhaps what you consider a failure, Sun would consider a small (but important) step forward toward legitimacy and therefore openness.
Sure. Anyone who built their computer or got a custom one built at a local "mom and pop" shop. From what I understand, Microsoft has cut down on piracy in these situations quite a bit, so generally these places will add about $100 or so to your computer's cost for Windows.
I won't even bother mentioning those Wal-mart Microtel computers...
As for users who plan to buy a new computer, unfortunately they do not have a whole lot of options. If they get a computer from Dell, you're right, the "Microsoft tax" isn't very high. However, a surprisingly large percentage of people (I wish I had the actual numbers, but I recall it being far higher than I would have expected) buy custom-built machines from neighborhood computer stores, where, assuming the store does not use a pirated copy of Windows, they would likely have to pay a lot closer to the full cost of the OS. Not to mention paying for any additional software the vendor would like to load on, like Office. With computers frequently costing under $500, this can still make up a very significant part of the cost. Of course, if Microsoft ends up freeing their OS, then Linux will be in a lot of trouble, but I don't think we're at a point where we can consider Windows completely free yet. Oh, and as far as small and large businesses are concerned, here the Microsoft tax becomes even more significant. These businesses have to pay for hundreds of Windows licenses (or perhaps there is some kind of expensive "business license" - I'm not sure, but either way it still applies). A single license is all it would take to get Linux on as many computers as the business needs. There have been many case studies about how Linux can save businesses large amounts of money.
Finally, you suggest that the best three arguments for Linux are flexibility, openness, and security. While these are clearly crucial advantages, their importance is not very apparent to Joe User who wants a new desktop OS. He does not notice the flexibility and will likely stick with default settings, he does not care about openness if Microsoft's closed protocols are so widely supported anyway, and while we may be able to scare him into worrying about security, the truth is there is no critical data that needs to be protected on most home users' machines, and they are not going to be running any servers. Unfortunately, I think the importance of these advantages is not significant enough to a typical home user.
Offhand, I can think of a couple more things that have not yet been mentioned by either of us that might be more persuasive - the first is the whole concept of EULA's. While most users don't really understand the significance of EULA's, it seems like it would be pretty easy to show them that they are "selling their souls to the devil" - most people don't like having to agree to pages and pages of fine print, and a rights-protecting license like the GPL might be attractive to them. Also, I'm not sure if this has been significantly improved with 2k/XP, but I know that most 9x users would be happy to hear that they don't have to worry about rebooting their machines with every change they make. I recently helped someone format their hard drive and reinstall Win98, and it must have taken at least 9 or 10 reboots before we had the machine at a good state. I mentioned how you never have to deal with rebooting in Linux and he seemed quite interested. Of course, I don't think he was ready for Linux, and Linux isn't ready for him, so I didn't install it (for one, he uses AOL, which he could not do with Linux - not to mention the fact that I did not want to have to be his personal tech support bitch for the next year).
Keep in mind that the primary advantage of Linux is definitely not beautiful looks. When I mention Linux to people, the reasons are usually more focused on its stability or, perhaps even more importantly, its cost. The fact that you can get an OS that comes with tons of software preloaded for half the price of a far more stripped down one like Windows is pretty significant.
So, with that in mind, why make it look like Windows 98? Well, Windows 98 is what the majority of computer users are used to, so why not make it something that won't take a lot of adjusting for them. Plus, what exactly is wrong with the way Windows 98 looks? (Remember, the main problems with Windows are its instability and its expensive cost, not its ugliness - I think it's a pretty nice looking, easy to use operating system). It makes sense to model a GUI after Windows.
And then of course, that other advantage of Linux comes into play - customizability. If you don't like the standard, you can definitely change it. KDE is pretty Windows-like, but there are tons of other Window managers that are quite unique-looking, and you can set up KDE to look more like Mac OS (with a menubar at the top) if that is what you prefer. Personally, though, I don't think the single menu-bar makes a lot of sense, despite what all those "UI-experts" claim. Yeah, sure you get the advantage of being able to move your mouse to the menu really fast, but if you're going for speed, you should be using keyboard shortcuts. Generally the menu is for more obscure functions that you only use once in a while. And it just seems to make a lot more sense to have a menu contained in the application - Mac's approach seems to discourage multitasking, by forcing you to pick one window that has to be on top.
I understand where you're coming from, but still, I think that if Mozilla really looks that bad by default, maybe the makers of Mozilla should consider changing the default skin, or maybe the makers of the distribution should configure it to come shipped with a better skin. I wish I had an actual statistic for this, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of newbies would never even consider changing the way anything on their computer looks - even their desktop - let alone changing their browser's skin. While you and I may love customizability, most newbies don't care (or don't know any better) and just stick with the defaults.
Anyway, I hope this distro turns out good, I can't wait til someone comes out with a distro that's simple yet solid enough for me to feel confident recommending it to all my friends/family. While there are many distros that come close, I still would hesitate before recommending any of them to a computer-novice friend.
Um, remind me again, since when was the primary advantage of "linuz" its beautiful looks? How about stability, and perhaps even more importantly, cost? If Joe User can get a fully loaded distro for half the cost of Windows (not to mention the included Office suite(s) and other software that Microsoft would have you spending hundreds of dollars on), I think that alone is plenty of incentive. If anything, the similarities to the looks of Windows should help this distro gain converts - the only thing holding most people back is the pain of learning a new system, and hopefully this will help to bridge the gap.
BTW, I realize that might have sounded overly harsh, I didn't mean it that way.
Oh, and as a side note, what's wrong with the Modern skin included with Mozilla? I've always been a big fan.
While I definitely would disagree with a decision shutting down these services, I must admit that I'd be somewhat pleased to see them shut down. Presumably, this would cause thousands of new users to migrate to other services - Gnutella, for one. From my self-centered perspective, I'd like to have more people using (and therefore more files being shared on) a network that I too can use (in Linux).
Anyway, there was a page about emoticons, listing a bunch of variations on the smiley. It's quite amusing. I was going to put them all here, but the lameness filter isn't letting me, so I'll just post a few highlights to whet your appetite and look for a link (here's one; click Internet in the left frame then search the right frame for "smiley"):
hello..can you say cost?
compare Windows XP + Office + Photoshop + whatever to any Linux distro + oh wait the distro already comes with equivilants of all that other stuff.
With computer hardware moving closer and closer to the $100 price point, how can you really justify spending 5 times that on software licenses?
Needless to say, 90% of all these Internet quakes are the result of a link on Slashdot. (And 95% of all statistics are made up.)
There's a much more important difference than this. With client-server, the server can control how much knowledge and control the client has. For example, the server can keep track of how much ammo you have picked up, and no matter how modified your client is, you cannot add ammo to that count, because the server knows that there's now way you could have gotten more. Same goes for health. Another example would be that the server only has to tell you information about what you can see - so a server couldn't tell you exactly what the other player has done in another room or how much health that player has left - you just trust the server to keep track of it.
Now take peer-to-peer. There is no trust-worthy server to keep track of all the information, so now either each client keeps track of himself (which would allow you to just change the amount of health/ammo you have, for example), or, more likely, each client would share all the information with the other clients, so that now you can't change your own values (other clients are checking you), but your client would have knowledge about everything that all the other clients know (find out stuff that is going on that you shouldn't be able to see). It seems that it would be pretty trivial to add a little display in your HUD which monitors all the other player's remaining health and ammo, so that you would know when is a smart time to attack them and when you should run away and restock.
In either case, of course, aim-hacks are possible. These are a lot harder to prevent, just because they don't really need to do anything special behind-the-scenes; they merely simulate user input with inhuman precision.