"These computers do not ship with Microsoft Windows. They ship with an exciting new UNIX based Operating System (OS) named Lindows. This exciting new OS delivers the stability of UNIX with the ease of Windows and the ability to run most Microsoft programs. These computer systems are a perfect low cost alternative to computers preloaded with Microsoft Windows."
This is what can be read on walmart's ad. It doesn't say you can run most windows apps. Instead it says that you can run most microsoft apps. Every M$windows-program isn't made by M$ itself. In example Corel Draw is made by Corel, which isn't quite the same thing as Microsoft, isn't it?
Also my opera 6.0 B2 does the same thing. And mozilla 1 rc1-2 does it, too.
In opera I just have to double-click the tab to fix the problem.
In mozilla I'll have to copy the URL, open a new window and paste the address there.
What do you do if you want to install a program when you're using windows? 1) You open the internet browser. 2) You go to a site where you download a file 3) You have to save the file somewhere. 4) You have to find the file after saving it. 5) You have to run the installer (maybe even unzip (or even vorse: unrar) it first). 6) You have to install the program with all those confusing dialogs. 7) You have to start the program
What do you do if you want to install a program when you're using linux? 1) You open the equivalent of start menu. 2) From there you select package manager. 3) You'll wait a while while the package manager updates it's database. 4) You'll scroll through a list of programs and click the program you wish to install. 5) You click the installing-button. 6) Package manager fetches the package from internet, installs and configures it. 7) You'll start the program.
I think the first isn't so easy after all.
You also said that a linux user must understand deb,rpm or source. I disagree. Yes. It's good for them to know those things. But not necessary at all. In a modern linux distribution you'll just install programs as I mentioned above. You can live without knowing anything about RPM or source. In windows you have to know exe and zip (two things versus linux's zero).
I guess you haven't really used modern distributions as I can see that you've been using slackware etc. For a guru slackware is good (and debian is better). It's quite a shame that every linux geek tell even the most *neophyte computer users* to install debian. They just say "you'll learn by using". I don't think they will.
There are many easier distributions, too. Many say that RedHat is easy or even the easiest. I'd say that isn't true. RedHat is indeed very good for a company because of its good tech support. But as a *neophyte computer user* you don't really use tech support. RedHat doesn't have any advanced package managing software as doesn't slackware, neither.
For a newbie SuSE or Mandrake would be better choises. In SuSE you've got YaST, a very easy program used to configure the system. While I was using SuSE i never *had* to use command prompt to anything. I used SuSE for half a year. SuSE's bad thing is that you'll need to use RPM's or YaST1, which doesn't have GUI-dialogs (though it is semi-graphical)
Then about mandrake: I just installed mandrake's linux-distribution to a friend of mine. I chose the "expert mode" in the installer. Even then the installer was easier to use than windows' installer. It let me partition my hard-disk and resize the partitions when I wanted. The program was much easier than dos's fdisk is. Then it put me to a screen where I had to choose what programs I wanted to install. I just clicked through the menus and chose the programs I wanted. In windows you'd have had to install all them separately (quite a big work). The above example of installing new programs was from Mandrake so you already know how easy it is. OK. Someone might call that mandrake's package manager useless since everything's ready when you've installed the OS. As an example: you've got OpenOffice which is a very good office program. The OS gives you more eye-candy than other windows' than XP do. XP has quite the same amount of eye candy.
Someone made a test with someone who had never used a computer. He used windows and mandrake. He said that mandrake was easier to use.
For someone who's used windows for 666 years and who's never used linux it might be harder to change the OS. It took me a few weeks to get comfortable with linux's directory tree etc when I became a linux-user. I've been using linux for a year now and I've tried the following distros: RedHat 7,1 SuSE 7.1, Debian 2.1, SuSE 7.2, Redhat 7.2, Mandrake 8.2, Debian woody (just did a dist-upgrade). Currently I'm using debian. I installed it 33 days ago. It's fallen down only once. That was because of power blackout. The machine has 128MB ram and I've often had load averages over 8. Currently my load averages are 2.00, 2.02, 2.09. And still the machine has remained stable even though I've done everything to make it hang (upgrade every night etc.)
Hmm. Maybe this is enough to convince you. Maybe it isn't.
Why on earth are you using a 28,8k modem? You say that anything faster would bankrupt you but it has to mean ISDN or ADSL (oslt.)
If you bought a 56k you'd save a lot of money in the phone bills. At least you could surf a lot faster.
Slashdot Mirror
"These computers do not ship with Microsoft Windows. They ship with an exciting new UNIX based Operating System (OS) named Lindows. This exciting new OS delivers the stability of UNIX with the ease of Windows and the ability to run most Microsoft programs. These computer systems are a perfect low cost alternative to computers preloaded with Microsoft Windows."
This is what can be read on walmart's ad.
It doesn't say you can run most windows apps. Instead it says that you can run most microsoft apps. Every M$windows-program isn't made by M$ itself. In example Corel Draw is made by Corel, which isn't quite the same thing as Microsoft, isn't it?
Erm.. Wasn't SuSE originally based on RedHat?-)
Also my opera 6.0 B2 does the same thing. And mozilla 1 rc1-2 does it, too. In opera I just have to double-click the tab to fix the problem. In mozilla I'll have to copy the URL, open a new window and paste the address there.
Why would anyone _really_ want to use links when w3m is available?
http://www.w3m.org/
Using w3m is just like using a graphical browser. If it's run in xterm it can also show images. Hope you download and enjoy.
Linux IS viable on the Desktop right now.
What do you do if you want to install a program when you're using windows?
1) You open the internet browser.
2) You go to a site where you download a file
3) You have to save the file somewhere.
4) You have to find the file after saving it.
5) You have to run the installer (maybe even unzip (or even vorse: unrar) it first).
6) You have to install the program with all those confusing dialogs.
7) You have to start the program
What do you do if you want to install a program when you're using linux?
1) You open the equivalent of start menu.
2) From there you select package manager.
3) You'll wait a while while the package manager updates it's database.
4) You'll scroll through a list of programs and click the program you wish to install.
5) You click the installing-button.
6) Package manager fetches the package from internet, installs and configures it.
7) You'll start the program.
I think the first isn't so easy after all.
You also said that a linux user must understand deb,rpm or source. I disagree.
Yes. It's good for them to know those things. But not necessary at all.
In a modern linux distribution you'll just install programs as I mentioned above. You can live without knowing anything about RPM or source.
In windows you have to know exe and zip (two things versus linux's zero).
I guess you haven't really used modern distributions as I can see that you've been using slackware etc.
For a guru slackware is good (and debian is better).
It's quite a shame that every linux geek tell even the most *neophyte computer users* to install debian. They just say "you'll learn by using". I don't think they will.
There are many easier distributions, too.
Many say that RedHat is easy or even the easiest. I'd say that isn't true.
RedHat is indeed very good for a company because of its good tech support.
But as a *neophyte computer user* you don't really use tech support.
RedHat doesn't have any advanced package managing software as doesn't slackware, neither.
For a newbie SuSE or Mandrake would be better choises.
In SuSE you've got YaST, a very easy program used to configure the system. While I was using SuSE i never *had* to use command prompt to anything. I used SuSE for half a year.
SuSE's bad thing is that you'll need to use RPM's or YaST1, which doesn't have GUI-dialogs (though it is semi-graphical)
Then about mandrake:
I just installed mandrake's linux-distribution to a friend of mine.
I chose the "expert mode" in the installer. Even then the installer was easier to use than windows' installer.
It let me partition my hard-disk and resize the partitions when I wanted. The program was much easier than dos's fdisk is.
Then it put me to a screen where I had to choose what programs I wanted to install.
I just clicked through the menus and chose the programs I wanted. In windows you'd have had to install all them separately (quite a big work).
The above example of installing new programs was from Mandrake so you already know how easy it is.
OK. Someone might call that mandrake's package manager useless since everything's ready when you've installed the OS. As an example: you've got OpenOffice which is a very good office program.
The OS gives you more eye-candy than other windows' than XP do. XP has quite the same amount of eye candy.
Someone made a test with someone who had never used a computer. He used windows and mandrake. He said that mandrake was easier to use.
For someone who's used windows for 666 years and who's never used linux it might be harder to change the OS. It took me a few weeks to get comfortable with linux's directory tree etc when I became a linux-user. I've been using linux for a year now and I've tried the following distros: RedHat 7,1 SuSE 7.1, Debian 2.1, SuSE 7.2, Redhat 7.2, Mandrake 8.2, Debian woody (just did a dist-upgrade).
Currently I'm using debian. I installed it 33 days ago. It's fallen down only once. That was because of power blackout. The machine has 128MB ram and I've often had load averages over 8. Currently my load averages are 2.00, 2.02, 2.09.
And still the machine has remained stable even though I've done everything to make it hang (upgrade every night etc.)
Hmm. Maybe this is enough to convince you. Maybe it isn't.
You don't really have to recover from any Windows crashes if you're not using it. It's that simple.
Why on earth are you using a 28,8k modem? You say that anything faster would bankrupt you but it has to mean ISDN or ADSL (oslt.) If you bought a 56k you'd save a lot of money in the phone bills. At least you could surf a lot faster.
The good ol' NS4-bug?
I'm using Mozilla 0.9.9 and I haven't noticed any problems. Maybe the problem has something to do with windows?