Just joking. I think the real reason would be that (I'm pretty sure) in Cedega Half Life 2 always runs in Directx 8 mode (would on the parent's card anyway). You can do that in Windows too.
I am thinking of messing with Cedega (buying it once is pretty cheap) just so I can finally play through the copy of Half-Life 2 I bought, but I have a question first.
Whats the best environment to use Cedega in? I know enough to know that running games inside of Gnome is a bad idea because Gnome likes to eat my resources, but what is the best way to do it? In a super light-weight Window Manager like openbox? I was planning on just logging out of Gnome and running the command to start the game inside the GDM failsafe terminal, is the a bad way to go about things?
I have a right as a person to want a binary driver API inside the kernel. I also have a right as a person to want to be able to run Linux with binary only drivers. Why is this so hard for you and all the other zealots to understand?
We understand it. What we don't understand it why we must spend OUR time and OUR effort doing it for you.
You are right- you can have Linux with binary drivers. The license lets you. Get coding. Oh, whats that you say? You are not a coder? Then it looks like this is one right that you can never use, like my right to have a billion dollars.
Now think long and hard about how much trouble could have been saved if Linux had just supported binary NDIS drivers in the first place.
Linux does support most binary drivers for wireless cards with Ndiswrapper. Would i have been easier if Linux would have had a way to do that from the time the first wireless drivers were released? No, because someone would still have to make the interface for those ndis drivers. Would users have had an easier time? Maybe yes, but Linux is about software not users. Companies make software for users. Linux is software made for companies (and users it they want it for what it is)....
But again, the ideas are coming before the user, and that is what I consider a failure.
You don't get it. Linux is not about pleasing a customer or getting one more percentage of marketshare. Linux is about quality software. Unless the quaility of Linux decreases, then Linux cannot fail. You impose goals on it that it never had.
(whats the number 1 and 2 turnoff th linux in the desktop? lack of a good UI and interoperability with the hardware a given user already has. IMO, there are GUI's that are almost there, and you could knock #2 off the list if a binary kernel driver layer was pulled off well... why not try?)
The Linux Desktop does not matter. Its a novelty- the desktop war was fought a while ago and everything not called Windows lost.
Linux matters on embedded devices, servers, and super computers- thats its biggest market. In each of those markets having binary drivers is not a big deal. In fact, for a super admin, having something they can't mess with in a server is a possible security risk.
Linux gets in people lives through TiVo's, cell phones, wireless hubs and free google use- not the desktop. Thats where it matters.
Linux should not and will never change itself to compete in a market in which it can't win. Who cares if Linux is not a wild success on the desktop? Desktop users are usually not developers, so they cannot help Linux with its true goal- to be better software. Linux wasn't made to win popularity contests.
If Windows works better with the hardware donated to a given user than Linux does, then Windows is a better choice. The situation is similar for users switching to Linux without buying a new computer.
Then let them use Windows. Its not like at Microsoft where every time a competitor is used then Linux loses a sale. Its not like "The Linux Company" benefits from greater desktop use.
Use what fits. Use what software works best. If Linux does not work for you or someone else they have options.
Linux is about quality software, not winning some silly desktop war.
It may be succeeding on the server, but until a Linux PC vendor starts advertising nationally, Linux is failing at the home desktop level.
Who cares? The Linux Desktop does not matter anyway. Its a novelty- the desktop war was fought a while ago and everything not called Windows lost.
Linux matters on embedded devices, servers, and super computers- thats its biggest market. In each of those markets having binary drivers is not a big deal. In fact, for a super admin, having something they can't mess with in a server is a possible security risk.
Linux gets in people lives through TiVo's, cell phones, wireless hubs and free google use- not the desktop. Thats where it matters.
Linux should not and will never change itself to compete in a market in which it can't win. Who cares if Linux is not a wild success on the desktop? Desktop users are usually not developers, so they cannot help Linux with its true goal- to be better software. Linux wasn't made to win popularity contests.
What about the segment "preloaded operating system on national-brand home PCs"?
Maybe you missed the memo. In every market it's in Linux use is growing. Is it always a lot of growth? No- but Linux is out there to be used, not to "win."
Are we so zealous that we want to keep these pieces of hardware from working with Linux?
I think the answer you would hear from those that contribute to Linux rather than just use it is "yes!"
How exactly does that help the adoptation of Linux on the desktop?
The policy doesn't help Linux on the Desktop, but the Linux Desktop does not matter anyway. Its a novelty- the desktop war was fought a while ago and everything not called Windows lost.
Linux matters on embedded devices, servers, and super computers- thats its biggest market. In each of those markets having binary drivers is not a big deal. In fact, for a super admin, having something they can't mess with in a server is a possible security risk.
Linux gets in people lives through TiVo's, cell phones, wireless hubs and free google use- not the desktop. Thats where it matters.
That is simply false. The NVIDIA drivers are the *only* decent 3D drivers available for Linux at the moment. No other drivers even come close in terms of features, performance and stability with 3D applications.
Not quite. The Nvidia drivers don't accerate EXA. I used to be the biggest Nvidia fan in the world, but next week I plan to drop my 6600 GT and get an ATI 9250 just because the open source driver in the 9250 accerates EXA in a way that allows me to have a stable xcompmgr on my desktop. The 92xx drivers are easily on par with Nvidia's, it just that the hardware is slower.
Hello, I hope I can help because I'm obsessed with making X feel faster.
If you would posted this a month ago I would have told you to get an Nvidia 5200 FX- no question. But now it seems that the ATI 9250's are a better choice because for the next Ubuntu release they will have great EXA support. The better EXA support means they might be able to run a compositor in a more stable fashion than the Nvidia cards can.
Using a compositor is the best way to speed up the Linux desktop. Actually its about the only good way, but using them with Nvidia cards can be very unstable (as my guide warns). It seems that the ATI cards using EXA are much more stable. Just be sure to get a 256mb ANYTHING if you can because usually you only pay ten or so extra bucks at that level and you can be assured that you will get a 128 bit card instead of a 64 bit card (which would be crap). Plus xcompmgr LOVES VRAM.
Can you stop talking outta your ass if you don't know what you're speaking about? mmmmmmK?
Yeah, because not talking out your ass is what Slashdot is founded on.
And plus, I phrased everything in speculative terms.
Of course If you want to contribute with something more than speculation, jump in and pick my post apart. I don't care. I would like the extra information and to bring about a more open discussion. But just telling me to shut up is a sure fire way to get me to copy and paste my little rant on every forum on the net that is carrying this news today- I don't take orders from Anonymous Cowards.
But why do this? Instead having the setup ask the user which windowmananger to chose from should be the best way.
That is not the best way for two reasons:
A. For a new Linux user what is Gnome or KDE? Why should they have to pick between two things they don't understand? It is better that they can just order the Ubuntu CD and have it make all those choices for them. You are assuming the person installing the OS has dealt with this stuff before, but that is not the people the project wishes to court.
B. (the bigger reason) Both Gnome and KDE can't be fit on one CD. Since the CDs are shipped for free this adds a huge cost. Plus an (k)Ubuntu feature is its one install CD. Making it so that people can just download their DE of choice at install is not a good option either, as most of the world lacks broadband.
IMHO KDE is more useful for those who are considering migrating from Windows to Linux. So I don't see why the commercial vendors are flocking to Gnome?
I disagree. I personally believe that Gnome is far better for new users than KDE. Why? Because its REALLY different. It gives the Linux desktop a distinct look that is different from Windows or OSX. The chameleon KDE can be made to look like them both or neither but this is bad for a new user because it does not give Linux Desktop a distinct look.
You might say "but that's better because then you can make KDE look like the Windows in which they are most familiar with." This is a BAD thing because if you make Linux look like Windows than people will expect other parts to be like Windows.
When you put a new users on a default KDE and they have the menu in the lower right corner and they have a control panel and whatever else that is like Windows XP they user thinks "hey this is just like what I'm used to." But then they get confused when this new OS- which seems to be almost exactly line Windows to them- can't install their old Window programs or is missing a option in the Control Panel that they were used to seeing.
But when you put a user on a default Gnome desktop it is so different that it forces the user to think differently (to steal a little from Apple). Just the fact that the menu is in a different place forces them to say to themselves "whoa, this is different" which then sets the attitude that applies to the rest of their experience. The differences in the entire Linux operating system seems annoying to a new KDE convert ("it looks just like XP, why can't it act like XP") but is more readily accepted by a Gnome convert ("it looks way different, so I can understand how it acts differently").
It might be nice theoretically that KDE can be made to look like Windows to help users get over the initial shock but until Linux can be a full Windows replacement (aka install Window programs WITH EASE) that just makes Desktop Linux seem like a crappier version of Windows that can't do as much. Gnome on the other hand is so different by default that it forces users to think differently and be able to accept the differences- like with OSX. With Gnome instead of Desktop Linux being a Windows XP copy that can't do as much as Windows XP, its a whole new OS with new challenges and a very distinct look.
That is the reason why Gnome is better for new users.
Disclaimer: I am a moderator on the Official English Ubuntu Forums
Gnome people, this is not the time to freak out. Just because Mark is using KDE as his desktop and he wants to put more resources into KDE doesn't mean that the Gnome side of Ubuntu is going to suffer. There could be many reasons for his new found interest in Kubuntu.
1.From the beginning it seems that Mark felt a little guilty that he had to pick one desktop to really do well. I know a lot of people think "just do one thing and do it well" is an admirable philosophy, but in the GNU world that is the path to weakness. The Linux Desktop is chaos and unless you want to spend enough to harness that chaos you HAVE to make some big decisions like that. When he first started with Ubuntu, he had no idea how successful it was going to be. He had not idea if the whole thing would be a waste of money, or that no one would care. But now that Ubuntu is making a huge splash in the Linux world and is making noise across the globe Mark has decided that he is willing to commit more of his resources to the entire Ubuntu project. He set up the Ubuntu foundation and gave it $10 million to begin with. So a new commitment to KDE and Kubuntu DOES NOT MEAN THAT UBUNTU WILL HAVE LESS, just that probably he will be willing to give more overall to help the KDE side as well.
2.Despite its relative popularity, the Kubuntu side of the project has not had nearly the resources the other side has gotten so far. The Kubuntu maintainer- Jonathan Riddell - did a lot of the work in its free time. At first he was only given a smallish contract at the end of releases to help get them in better shape. I bet that if Mark is serious about Kubuntu it will finally have a full time developer (if that is not already the case).
3.A big goal of the entire Ubuntu project for Mark is his Edubuntu side project. Well in all honesty Kubuntu might be a better fit for that project than Ubuntu for a few reasons: the The KDE Edutainment Project is the single best educational software on the GNU desktop and is far more developed than anything on the Gnome side. Plus KDE uses less RAM (this is my own opinion) so it might be a better fit for the older computers that many schools might have today. Gnome hates to have less than 256mb, and you can't build a user friendly desktop around XFCE (and it would probably take less resources to make Kubuntu better than to fix all of Gnome's RAM problems single handily). So a better KDE is better for the Kubuntu project.
4.The entire Ubuntu community has been trying better to make the KDE side seem like an equal ever since it was announced. On the Official Forums we have separated KDE and Gnome areas for the Breezy release, and beyond that a forum independent forum was made by a third party for Kubuntu. So in some ways Mark is just catching up to the rest of the community.
The last thing any Gnome fan and Ubuntu user needs to think is that "the sky is falling." This is a GOOD thing for you Gnome fans. Why? A better Kubuntu will bring more people to the distro and that could help build the overall community. A better Kubuntu will help establish the entire project as THE Desktop Linux which would help with gaining support of third party application makers that won't release for anything not called Red Hat. A better Kubuntu shows that Mark is becoming even more devoted to the project, and considering the man makes more off of investments than the entire Linux service industry more of his support means that the entire project is is better shape. Finally, a better Kubuntu means that there is more choice in the community and that the entire project is maturing. Its a good time to be a Desktop Linux user.
Why isn't using several monitors a Xorg issue instead of Gnome or KDE?
It comes down to Xinerama support. I personally believe Gnome's window manager (metacity) does a little better with two screens than KDe's (kwin) but that just my opnion. They both do a million times better than Window XP's (which loves to maximize things over both screens).
I'm not a developer, but I'm a Windows power user (the key demographic, yes?) who'd be happy to be on a team of folks interested in this.
Actually Windows Power Users are not the key demographic. I advise the community I am a part of to avoid trying to convert such users if they can. Why? Because the demands for such users are higher than those who think that computers are magic boxes that are shipped filled with spyware, but they are less willing to tolerate the Linux learning curve then a super nerd.
If Linux gets popular on the desktop, it will be in spite of Windows Power Users, not because of them
I am not saying that windows has it's problems installing software, but people are used to the problems with windows and unwilling to change something they see as working for something else with its own set of problems that they will not understand.
Then those people will just stick with Windows. I promise, for such users, they would have quit Linux anyway when they learned that the webcam or the wireless card they bought at Best Buy doesn't work. Linux is a nerd OS, one day we will all just admit it and the flamewars might stop.
Installing, I really don't see why Linux can't take a lesson from Apple and improve on it.
Because there is no one Desktop Linux. There are ten fighting it out and none have the resources needed to be a full desktop OS like OSX. That said, its really nice if you are a nerd and you can grok it.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux?
Just joking. I think the real reason would be that (I'm pretty sure) in Cedega Half Life 2 always runs in Directx 8 mode (would on the parent's card anyway). You can do that in Windows too.
Whats the best environment to use Cedega in? I know enough to know that running games inside of Gnome is a bad idea because Gnome likes to eat my resources, but what is the best way to do it? In a super light-weight Window Manager like openbox? I was planning on just logging out of Gnome and running the command to start the game inside the GDM failsafe terminal, is the a bad way to go about things?
Intel sells the most video cards.
We understand it. What we don't understand it why we must spend OUR time and OUR effort doing it for you.
You are right- you can have Linux with binary drivers. The license lets you. Get coding. Oh, whats that you say? You are not a coder? Then it looks like this is one right that you can never use, like my right to have a billion dollars.
I don't need luck, my Gamecube work fine.
Now think long and hard about how much trouble could have been saved if Linux had just supported binary NDIS drivers in the first place.
Linux does support most binary drivers for wireless cards with Ndiswrapper. Would i have been easier if Linux would have had a way to do that from the time the first wireless drivers were released? No, because someone would still have to make the interface for those ndis drivers. Would users have had an easier time? Maybe yes, but Linux is about software not users. Companies make software for users. Linux is software made for companies (and users it they want it for what it is)....
You don't get it. Linux is not about pleasing a customer or getting one more percentage of marketshare. Linux is about quality software. Unless the quaility of Linux decreases, then Linux cannot fail. You impose goals on it that it never had.
(whats the number 1 and 2 turnoff th linux in the desktop? lack of a good UI and interoperability with the hardware a given user already has. IMO, there are GUI's that are almost there, and you could knock #2 off the list if a binary kernel driver layer was pulled off well... why not try?)
The Linux Desktop does not matter. Its a novelty- the desktop war was fought a while ago and everything not called Windows lost.
Linux matters on embedded devices, servers, and super computers- thats its biggest market. In each of those markets having binary drivers is not a big deal. In fact, for a super admin, having something they can't mess with in a server is a possible security risk.
Linux gets in people lives through TiVo's, cell phones, wireless hubs and free google use- not the desktop. Thats where it matters.
Linux should not and will never change itself to compete in a market in which it can't win. Who cares if Linux is not a wild success on the desktop? Desktop users are usually not developers, so they cannot help Linux with its true goal- to be better software. Linux wasn't made to win popularity contests.
Then let them use Windows. Its not like at Microsoft where every time a competitor is used then Linux loses a sale. Its not like "The Linux Company" benefits from greater desktop use.
Use what fits. Use what software works best. If Linux does not work for you or someone else they have options.
Linux is about quality software, not winning some silly desktop war.
Who cares? The Linux Desktop does not matter anyway. Its a novelty- the desktop war was fought a while ago and everything not called Windows lost.
Linux matters on embedded devices, servers, and super computers- thats its biggest market. In each of those markets having binary drivers is not a big deal. In fact, for a super admin, having something they can't mess with in a server is a possible security risk.
Linux gets in people lives through TiVo's, cell phones, wireless hubs and free google use- not the desktop. Thats where it matters.
Linux should not and will never change itself to compete in a market in which it can't win. Who cares if Linux is not a wild success on the desktop? Desktop users are usually not developers, so they cannot help Linux with its true goal- to be better software. Linux wasn't made to win popularity contests.
Maybe you missed the memo. In every market it's in Linux use is growing. Is it always a lot of growth? No- but Linux is out there to be used, not to "win."
I think the answer you would hear from those that contribute to Linux rather than just use it is "yes!"
How exactly does that help the adoptation of Linux on the desktop?
The policy doesn't help Linux on the Desktop, but the Linux Desktop does not matter anyway. Its a novelty- the desktop war was fought a while ago and everything not called Windows lost.
Linux matters on embedded devices, servers, and super computers- thats its biggest market. In each of those markets having binary drivers is not a big deal. In fact, for a super admin, having something they can't mess with in a server is a possible security risk.
Linux gets in people lives through TiVo's, cell phones, wireless hubs and free google use- not the desktop. Thats where it matters.
Not quite. The Nvidia drivers don't accerate EXA. I used to be the biggest Nvidia fan in the world, but next week I plan to drop my 6600 GT and get an ATI 9250 just because the open source driver in the 9250 accerates EXA in a way that allows me to have a stable xcompmgr on my desktop. The 92xx drivers are easily on par with Nvidia's, it just that the hardware is slower.
Then we in the Linux community just won't buy their stuff, or find ways to force it to work when we do (ndiswrapper or reverse engineering).
If you would posted this a month ago I would have told you to get an Nvidia 5200 FX- no question. But now it seems that the ATI 9250's are a better choice because for the next Ubuntu release they will have great EXA support. The better EXA support means they might be able to run a compositor in a more stable fashion than the Nvidia cards can.
Using a compositor is the best way to speed up the Linux desktop. Actually its about the only good way, but using them with Nvidia cards can be very unstable (as my guide warns). It seems that the ATI cards using EXA are much more stable. Just be sure to get a 256mb ANYTHING if you can because usually you only pay ten or so extra bucks at that level and you can be assured that you will get a 128 bit card instead of a 64 bit card (which would be crap). Plus xcompmgr LOVES VRAM.
OSX is a desktop OS. Linux is a universal OS.
(First party titles x (licensing fees x installed base)) - (hardware loss + advertising loss)
This formula is the one that explains why the first Xbox lost Microsoft all of that money.
Yeah, because not talking out your ass is what Slashdot is founded on.
And plus, I phrased everything in speculative terms.
Of course If you want to contribute with something more than speculation, jump in and pick my post apart. I don't care. I would like the extra information and to bring about a more open discussion. But just telling me to shut up is a sure fire way to get me to copy and paste my little rant on every forum on the net that is carrying this news today- I don't take orders from Anonymous Cowards.
That is not the best way for two reasons:
A. For a new Linux user what is Gnome or KDE? Why should they have to pick between two things they don't understand? It is better that they can just order the Ubuntu CD and have it make all those choices for them. You are assuming the person installing the OS has dealt with this stuff before, but that is not the people the project wishes to court.
B. (the bigger reason) Both Gnome and KDE can't be fit on one CD. Since the CDs are shipped for free this adds a huge cost. Plus an (k)Ubuntu feature is its one install CD. Making it so that people can just download their DE of choice at install is not a good option either, as most of the world lacks broadband.
I disagree. I personally believe that Gnome is far better for new users than KDE. Why? Because its REALLY different. It gives the Linux desktop a distinct look that is different from Windows or OSX. The chameleon KDE can be made to look like them both or neither but this is bad for a new user because it does not give Linux Desktop a distinct look.
You might say "but that's better because then you can make KDE look like the Windows in which they are most familiar with." This is a BAD thing because if you make Linux look like Windows than people will expect other parts to be like Windows.
When you put a new users on a default KDE and they have the menu in the lower right corner and they have a control panel and whatever else that is like Windows XP they user thinks "hey this is just like what I'm used to." But then they get confused when this new OS- which seems to be almost exactly line Windows to them- can't install their old Window programs or is missing a option in the Control Panel that they were used to seeing.
But when you put a user on a default Gnome desktop it is so different that it forces the user to think differently (to steal a little from Apple). Just the fact that the menu is in a different place forces them to say to themselves "whoa, this is different" which then sets the attitude that applies to the rest of their experience. The differences in the entire Linux operating system seems annoying to a new KDE convert ("it looks just like XP, why can't it act like XP") but is more readily accepted by a Gnome convert ("it looks way different, so I can understand how it acts differently").
It might be nice theoretically that KDE can be made to look like Windows to help users get over the initial shock but until Linux can be a full Windows replacement (aka install Window programs WITH EASE) that just makes Desktop Linux seem like a crappier version of Windows that can't do as much. Gnome on the other hand is so different by default that it forces users to think differently and be able to accept the differences- like with OSX. With Gnome instead of Desktop Linux being a Windows XP copy that can't do as much as Windows XP, its a whole new OS with new challenges and a very distinct look.
That is the reason why Gnome is better for new users.
Gnome people, this is not the time to freak out. Just because Mark is using KDE as his desktop and he wants to put more resources into KDE doesn't mean that the Gnome side of Ubuntu is going to suffer. There could be many reasons for his new found interest in Kubuntu.
1.From the beginning it seems that Mark felt a little guilty that he had to pick one desktop to really do well. I know a lot of people think "just do one thing and do it well" is an admirable philosophy, but in the GNU world that is the path to weakness. The Linux Desktop is chaos and unless you want to spend enough to harness that chaos you HAVE to make some big decisions like that. When he first started with Ubuntu, he had no idea how successful it was going to be. He had not idea if the whole thing would be a waste of money, or that no one would care. But now that Ubuntu is making a huge splash in the Linux world and is making noise across the globe Mark has decided that he is willing to commit more of his resources to the entire Ubuntu project. He set up the Ubuntu foundation and gave it $10 million to begin with. So a new commitment to KDE and Kubuntu DOES NOT MEAN THAT UBUNTU WILL HAVE LESS, just that probably he will be willing to give more overall to help the KDE side as well.
2.Despite its relative popularity, the Kubuntu side of the project has not had nearly the resources the other side has gotten so far. The Kubuntu maintainer- Jonathan Riddell - did a lot of the work in its free time. At first he was only given a smallish contract at the end of releases to help get them in better shape. I bet that if Mark is serious about Kubuntu it will finally have a full time developer (if that is not already the case).
3.A big goal of the entire Ubuntu project for Mark is his Edubuntu side project. Well in all honesty Kubuntu might be a better fit for that project than Ubuntu for a few reasons: the The KDE Edutainment Project is the single best educational software on the GNU desktop and is far more developed than anything on the Gnome side. Plus KDE uses less RAM (this is my own opinion) so it might be a better fit for the older computers that many schools might have today. Gnome hates to have less than 256mb, and you can't build a user friendly desktop around XFCE (and it would probably take less resources to make Kubuntu better than to fix all of Gnome's RAM problems single handily). So a better KDE is better for the Kubuntu project.
4.The entire Ubuntu community has been trying better to make the KDE side seem like an equal ever since it was announced. On the Official Forums we have separated KDE and Gnome areas for the Breezy release, and beyond that a forum independent forum was made by a third party for Kubuntu. So in some ways Mark is just catching up to the rest of the community.
The last thing any Gnome fan and Ubuntu user needs to think is that "the sky is falling." This is a GOOD thing for you Gnome fans. Why? A better Kubuntu will bring more people to the distro and that could help build the overall community. A better Kubuntu will help establish the entire project as THE Desktop Linux which would help with gaining support of third party application makers that won't release for anything not called Red Hat. A better Kubuntu shows that Mark is becoming even more devoted to the project, and considering the man makes more off of investments than the entire Linux service industry more of his support means that the entire project is is better shape. Finally, a better Kubuntu means that there is more choice in the community and that the entire project is maturing. Its a good time to be a Desktop Linux user.
A. Some people don't want Gnome stuff installed.
B. The Kubuntu project focuses energy on the KDE side so that it can have more polish and can work better with Ubuntu.
C. The Kubuntu project is a shift to allow for official support of KDE (its in the main now, like say XFCE).
D. The Kubuntu project provides a meta-package (kubuntu-desktop) that makes it easier to install a full KDE in Gnome.
It comes down to Xinerama support. I personally believe Gnome's window manager (metacity) does a little better with two screens than KDe's (kwin) but that just my opnion. They both do a million times better than Window XP's (which loves to maximize things over both screens).
Actually Windows Power Users are not the key demographic. I advise the community I am a part of to avoid trying to convert such users if they can. Why? Because the demands for such users are higher than those who think that computers are magic boxes that are shipped filled with spyware, but they are less willing to tolerate the Linux learning curve then a super nerd.
If Linux gets popular on the desktop, it will be in spite of Windows Power Users, not because of them
Then those people will just stick with Windows. I promise, for such users, they would have quit Linux anyway when they learned that the webcam or the wireless card they bought at Best Buy doesn't work. Linux is a nerd OS, one day we will all just admit it and the flamewars might stop.
Because there is no one Desktop Linux. There are ten fighting it out and none have the resources needed to be a full desktop OS like OSX. That said, its really nice if you are a nerd and you can grok it.
Yep, because Windows runs so well on Sun Blade 100s. Geez!