Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Two Lackluster Reviews For LindowsOS on Wal-Mart PCs

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the that's-a-lot-for-two-bum-downloads dept.

Linux Business 382

Eugenia writes: "Two individual reviews of LindowsOS running on the MicroTel/Wal-Mart hardware were published today. The first can be found over at NewsForge and the other one at BayArea.com. Both reviews are not positive for the Lindows solution and they are not excited about the idea of Click-n-Run."

cancel ×

382 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

efff peeee (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821506)

I'd like to wish a happy july 4th to the country that funds Israel's terrorism, created the DMCA, and generally wipes it's ass on the rest of the world.

Happy July 4th you filthy pig fuckers.

Ice-backs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821543)

STFU, you Canadian bitch. Now go fetch me a Molsen and put on that dress on I like. God damn fucking snow-Mexican, no one gave you permission to talk on the US weblog.

Re:Ice-backs (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821567)

how about I fetch you a budweiser, and put on a moomoo, and I can pretend to be a fat american too?

Then I can join a malitia and shot some niggers, thats the american way!

Re:Ice-backs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821584)

You most likely have less facial hair than your average Canadian chick, so come on down. On second thought, don't. I don't need you following me around like a love-sick puppy after I cornhole you like you have never been cornholed before. (and seeing how much your dad loved buggary, that is saying a lot)

Re:Ice-backs (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821590)

american chicks are so fat, a size 14 is considered 'small'.

and american 'football' is pure shit.

Dustin Diamond, is that you? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821603)

I didn't know you were a Canuck!

Re:Ice-backs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821613)

You seem to like them so much, so here is some
facial hair-less Canadian chick propanganda

Facial hair-less Canadian Chick [absolutely.net]

Re:efff peeee (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821562)

I'd like to wish a happy july 4th to the country that funds Israel's terrorism, created the DMCA, and generally wipes it's ass on the rest of the world.

Fair comments one and all. Recommended further reading: John Pilger's New Rulers of the World [amazon.com] .

thank you (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821571)

Your post shows a sense of intelligence and reason that is not seen on slashdot very often.

Re:efff peeee (-1)

Big Dogs Cock (539391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821568)


Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What a nation of queers and faggots ass-reaming?
Fat fucks with huge cars, watch the TV all night,
On the wrestling we saw, rednecks mindlessly screaming?
And the TV's blue glare, the farts bursting in air
Gave proof thro' the night that our trailer's still there.
Oh, say, is that Shit-Spatterd Banner yet hung
O'er the land of the fat and the home of the dumb?


On the screen, dimly seen thro' the piles of chip bags,
Oprah, Springer and Lake talking rubbish to losers,
Where the mega-corps pay, to elect closet fags,
Fascits, coke-heads, sex freaks, crooks and burglars and boozers
Now it catches the gleam of the headlight's first beam,
It's barely reflected in a polluted stream;
'Tis the Shit-Spattered Banner, How long has it hung
O'er the land of the fat and the home of the dumb.


And what was that noise where did it come from?
Thats the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
Some ragheads, a wedding and a not so smart bomb
Their blood is for oil to create more pollution.
No refuge could save the McDonalds slave
Or the wetbacks who earn half the minimum wage:
And the shit-spattered banner, retards with a guns
In the land of the fat and the home of the dumb.


Oh, thus be it ever when fat men shall sit
In front of TVs with accute constapaion
Fat with pizza and chips, dulled by programs so shit
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, Exxon say that it's just,
And this be our motto, "In money our trust"
And the Shit-Spattered Banner in triumph is hung
O'er the land of the fat and the home of the dumb!

Linux sux (-1)

anonymous cowfart (576665) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821507)

'nuff said

yay (-1, Offtopic)

richjoyce (582073) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821508)

adf karma burn

Yeah baby (-1)

Dwaynewayne (463999) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821510)

I love you!

'Lindows' oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821513)

It is called "Lindows", yet is neither Linux nor Windows in nature.

It is a veritable black fly in one's Chardonnay (0)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821526)

enn tee.

Re:It is a veritable black fly in one's Chardonnay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821558)

Which one of you fucktard moderators modded this up?

Re:It is a veritable black fly in one's Chardonnay (-1, Offtopic)

gazbo (517111) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821578)

None, fucktard AC.

non multisync monitor? (4, Insightful)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821536)

So far, very nice. But then X Windows came up. Unfortunately, the monitor I normally use for testing is not a multisync monitor. This apparently was a problem for the system as configured. As a result, the screen became entirely unreadable. Faced with this, I decided to do what any novice user would do: I powered the machine off. Yes, I could have gone to one of the text consoles, logged in as root, and issued the shutdown command, but very few Wal-Mart buyers would know about that.


I do not find this part of the article fair. I don't know about most of you, but almost all monitors that have come out in the last 7 or 8 years are multisync compatible. I don't think it's fair to blame ancient hardware not working on the system. Besides, most people who buy these walmart systems would pick up a new, and most likely multisync compatible, monitor.

Re:non multisync monitor? (4, Insightful)

erasmus_ (119185) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821619)

Why is it not fair? He does not seem to assign a great deal to the fact that it did not work initially, giving them more credit for the fact that when he simply shuts off the machine, as Joe Consumer would, it comes back up ok. To me, it was a recoverability test, not a hardware compatibility one. His biggest problems are with Click-n-Run, as evidenced by the review summary.

Re:non multisync monitor? (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821697)

Why? Any decent OS should let you use a safe mode [e.g. 640x480x16 colors] before switching automagically to a higher color mode.

Next your going to comment that anyone with a 5 yr old soundblaster PCI16 should get the latest and greatest PCI64 Soundblaster 128 or something just because supporting widespread hardware that is older than a month is taboo.

Tom

Re:non multisync monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821751)

bzzz... sorry... thanks for playing...

I got a non multisync monitor. It works in one resolution, in one frequency (1024x768 @ 60hz), much like LCD panels. Why do I put up with it, its a 21" monitor and I dont have money to spend frivously.

With this monitor, even text mode (yes, I mean bios too) fails. Do I fault bios makers for not working with my hardware? Do I fault MS that it cant recognize my monitor?

nope. nope.

and finally, iirc, in x when you press ctrl-alt-[plus/minus] you can switch resolutions, so with few switches he could have gotten the resolution to usable state.

If lindows disabled the ctrl-alt-[plus/minus] then I would have a bone to pick.

Lindows was not advertised as: working with your 286 by emulating protected memory modes, it was advertised as the next os, future to windows.

If you want some more hardware friendly distro go with Slackware or gentoo..

how can they be? (1)

68k geek (573999) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821539)

[quote]and they are not excited about the idea of Click-n-Run.[/quote] how can they be? it's taking money for free GNU software!

Re:how can they be? (2, Informative)

TheKid965 (535451) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821686)

And your point would be...?

Read your GPL. You can charge money for GPL-licensed software if you so desire. Otherwise, every distribution on the planet, save the "true" Debian, would be in violation. "Free," in this sense, does not necessarily mean "no cost to the user."

Now, if Click-n-Run both charged money for its service *and* provided no way for the user to acquire the source code for GPL-licensed software... now in *that* case, they would be violating the GPL.

Besides which, the implication from the articles I've read is that LindowsOS, being somewhat built on Debian technology, still incorporates the apt-get system. An experienced user can still apt-get .deb packages just as s/he has always been able to do; Click-n-Run is a comfort-zone tool for the newbies. Nothing wrong with that.

Top 10 reasons to upgrade to Vis. Studio (-1)

pwpbot (588025) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821542)

aTop10ReasonstoUpgradetoVisualBasicNETMicrosoftVis .ualBasicNETincludedinMicrosoftVisualStudioNETProf .essionalEnterpriseDeveloperandEnterpriseArchitect .editionsisthelatestversionofVisualBasicbuiltspeci .ficallyforexistingVisualBasicdeveloperswhowanttog .etthemostoutofthesoftwaredevelopmentexperienceIna .dditiontomorepowerproductivityandapplicationstabi .lityVisualBasicNETprovideskeyenhancementsthatsolv .ethemostpressingchallengesthatVisualBasicdevelope .rsfacetodayFromthenewintegrateddevelopmentenviron .mentIDEtoamodernstreamlinedVisualBasiclanguageVis .ualBasicNETdeliversthetoprequestedfeaturesbuiltfo .rtodaysVisualBasicdeveloperNumber1SeamlessDeploym .entVisualBasicNETsolvesthemostpressingissuesaroun .dWindowsbasedapplicationdeploymentandmakesDLLHell .andcomponentversioningissuesathingofthepastNewXCO .PYdeploymentenablesdeveloperstoinstallaWindowsbas .edapplicationsimplybycopyingfilestoadirectoryWith .VisualBasicNETandnewautodownloaddeploymentWindows .basedapplicationscanbeinstalledandexecutedsimplyb .ypointingaWebbrowsertoaURLNumber2MoreRobustCodeVi .sualBasicNETdeliversthefeaturemostrequestedbyexis .tingVisualBasicdevelopersfewerbugsinthecodetheywr .iteFeaturesinthenewVisualStudioNETIDEsuchastherea .ltimebackgroundcompilerandthetasklistkeepVisualBa .sicdevelopersuptodateonanycodingerrorsastheyoccur .enablingquickandeffectiveerrorresolutionEnhanceme .ntstotheVisualBasiclanguagesuchasstricttypechecki .ngandstructuredexceptionhandlingenabledeveloperst .owritecodethatismorerobustmaintainableandlesspron .etoruntimeerrorsNumber3PowerfulWindowsbasedApplic .ationsVisualBasicNETisthemostproductivetoolforcon .structingpowerfulMicrosoftWindowsbasedapplication .sThenewWindowsFormsDesignerenablesdeveloperstoget .theirdesktopapplicationstomarketinlesstimeNewfeat .uresincludecontrolanchoringanddockingtoeliminatet .heneedforcomplexresizecodetheinplacemenueditortod .eliverWYSIWYGmenucreationandthetabordereditortopr .oviderapidapplicationdevelopmentRADorganizationof .controlsNumber4PowerfulFlexibleDataAccessVisualBa .sicNETprovidesdeveloperswithboththeActiveXDataObj .ectsADOdataaccessprogrammingmodelthattheyknowandl .oveplusthenewXMLbasedMicrosoftADONETWithADONETdev .elopersgainaccesstomorepowerfulcomponentssuchasth .eDataSetcontrolandanewstronglytypedprogrammingmod .elthatprovidesMicrosoftIntelliSensestatementcompl .etionwithindataaccesscodeNumber5SimplifiedCompone .ntCreationVisualBasicNETbringsRADtocomponentdevel .opmentDeveloperscanusenonvisualtoolboxandserverex .

Click and Run? (1)

apoupc (569200) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821544)

Does "Click and Run" mean that once you click on Lindows you're never going to want to use it again and run away from ever using it again?

Click-n-Run (1)

squarefish (561836) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821545)

it's a bad name, sounds too much like 'hit-and-run'

Time (4, Interesting)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821550)

LindowsOS, at least in its present form, represents false economy. Any money you save buying a LindowsOS computer and downloading Click-N-Run software will be canceled out by the time spent coping with the many missing pieces.

That reminds me of someone who said (JWZ?) " Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing ". Despite all the commendable advances, personally I'll keep it as a damn fine server and stick with Windows for my desktop.

Next year though ... things might be very different ...

Re:Time (1)

goldorak_dan (409400) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821650)

Next year though ... things might be very different

Jeez I hope your right... but haven't people been saying that since 1998?

Re:Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821668)

Windows on the desktop, Linux on the server. That's what I chose, too. But I'm evaluating Linux on the desktop now, because Microsoft's latest operating systems are too indiscreet. Combine that with Microsoft's plans to restrict what I can do with my own hardware and there's a good enough reason to attempt the switch.

Re:Time (2, Interesting)

Myopic (18616) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821688)

i agree. as it is, i have a years-old macintosh (original iMac) and i'm treading water waiting for Linux to become Good Enough for me. i had Linux installed on my iMac for a while but found it not-quite-usable enough to make it worthwhile -- it's not that i don't understand how a computer works (writing software is, in fact, my profession), it's that i don't know by heart the 150 little utilities, scripts, and commands to frob the tiny little details of the system, and couldn't convince myself to read any of the 1,000 page Linux tomes.

i was heartened recently with the new releases of Mozilla and Gnome and OpenOffice. i'm waiting for those three pieces of software to make it into the distros and i'll be ready to buy a cheap PC and run only Linux (i don't and never have done Windows). i'm long past having developed a hatred for MacOS (for crashes alone; i think it's still the most usable OS).

one really great thing about Linux is how absolutely sure i am that it and other Free software will "win". already, Free alternatives are just about as good as their commercial counterparts. already they are more stable and secure, and our community is watching as one after another popular title becomes super-user-friendly, too. it's folly to think that people will keep paying for software when free software is better. free operating systems, browsers, office suites, chat clients, file browsers, peer-to-peer software, mp3 players, and graphics programs WILL win market share in the end simply because they are Good and Free.

plus, what about the next company which decides it wants to write it wants to release it's own web browser? you think they'll reinvent the wheel instead of using Mozilla? why would they do that? so they don't have to comply with the GPL? no way. with software so complex, companies will wisely choose to build on the already-Free options then bit the bullet and release their modifications back to the community.

i really really believe that the momentum is absolutely impossible to stop. the future of consumer software will not be like the past. the reason is simple economics.

Re:Time (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821701)

It is true that Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing. But it is also true for any other operating system and it is also true for most anything else you do. Consider the following: Sleep is only free if your time is worth nothing - Or: Reading Slashdot is free if your time is worth nothing.

Next year... Wha? (1)

Tune (17738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821746)

> Next year though ... things might be very different ...

I'm not sure what you are implying:

1) Next year Lindows will trash Windows' desktop dominance
2) Next year Microsoft will suddenly have a stable server that happily cuddles with my ELF binaries [slashdot.org] ;-)

Re:Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821766)

Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing. Windows is only [insert your local cost to buy appropriate version of Windows] if your time is worth nothing, and you don't buy any of the somewhat necessary extras, like anti-virus software.

You know what -- I'll even concede that an install of Win98 is quicker and easier than an install of Mandrake, say, although Win98 starts to go downhill rapidly with all the rebooting when you install updated device drivers afterwards. What I will say, though, is that my average Mandrake install has had a longer maintenance-free life than my average Windows install. Or, to put it another way, it's a good thing that Microsoft have refined their installation procedures so well, because their mean time between reinstalls is relatively low.

Back in the bad old days when I was using Win95, I was very practiced at doing the install routine. I specifically configured machines with two disk partitions and the Win95 CD data on the D: drive (along with personal files and application setup files) so that I could format C: and reinstall from the D: drive in superquick time without resort to the slow and annoying CD at all. Windows has got its panties in a twist again? No problem -- a quick reinstall will fix that!

Re:Time (1)

Eythian (552130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821773)

Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing

While true, it is still also the case that Windows is only $510* if your time is worth nothing.

It seems to me that a working Linux system is likely to take less time to keep working, or fix when it breaks, than an equivalent Windows system. This is backed up by seeing the sorry state of windows machines that I sometimes have to use, and the overworked tech people who have to keep them going. Also the fact that they had to provide me with expensive Adobe software to do something that I could do better for free on a Linux system - with software that was in the default install.

* NZD, at a local shop [bcscomputers.co.nz] .

Obscure Unix commands...!? (3, Funny)

aallan (68633) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821552)

I was a bit shocked by...

It took several phone calls -- escalating to the point of calling a Lindows.com executive, an option not available to non-journalists -- before I discovered LindowsOS doesn't yet have a feature for setting the refresh rate. Instead, the company sent me complicated and potentially risky instructions for changing the refresh rate by entering obscure Unix commands such as "xf86cfg."

I did finally manage to set a high refresh rate, but only after taking a technical step that's equivalent to jumping off a cliff without knowing for sure if there's a safety net below.

I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.

Al.

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (1)

SpatchMonkey (300000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821572)

The difference is, Control Panel -> Display -> Settings is a lot more obvious than running a program called 'xf86cfg'.

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (2, Insightful)

rmgrotkierii (190011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821647)

The difference is, Control Panel -> Display -> Settings is a lot more obvious than running a program called 'xf86cfg'


Tell that to a complete newbie, and they will have a lot of trouble even doing that. :)

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (2, Informative)

MikeOttawa (551441) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821574)

But if its so simple, why would they not have just incorporated it into their version of the Control Panel... I wish I could see a working version of Lindows and see what they're talking about!

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (1)

rsidd (6328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821589)

I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.

Now, depending on one's point of view, that comment could be modded flamebait, troll, funny, interesting, informative, or insightful. Which did you mean it to be?

XFree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821617)

Come on, everyone know setting up monitors/ changing res etc ... in X handles like a piece of shit.

Font's are equally as bad.

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (1)

Shisha (145964) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821620)

I did finally manage to set a high refresh rate, but only after taking a technical step that's equivalent to jumping off a cliff without knowing for sure if there's a safety net below.
All they wanted me to use was this obscure sequence of menu commands and dialog boxes, going something like "Configure Desktop->Settings>Graphics System->Monitor". I was really scared and that is exactly how I feel when using the Control Panel in Windows. God and Bill only know what's going on down below, not to mention the safety net that might not have ever been there.
No really, I feel much safer using xf86cfg, than control panel. Luckily I parted with Control Panel some years ago. Then again Control Panel might be easy to use nowdays.

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (1)

rmgrotkierii (190011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821622)

I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.
This was the first time he ever had access to anything mechcanical. Usually he wrote his stories with a pen and paper and had someone type them up for him. I'm amazed they allowed him to actually touch a working computer, alone.

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (1)

DrVxD (184537) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821643)

> Usually he wrote his stories with a pen and paper
No, he's not allowed sharp implements like pens. He writes them in crayon.

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (2)

Soko (17987) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821631)

I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.
Al.


No, it's not difficult for you. However, most people don't have a clue as to what a refresh rate is, let alone how to set it by hacking at various commands.

You can rant all you want about "people who don't want to learn the tools" and the other various regular geek arguments, but it boils down to this:

Until a parrot can install and configure a Linux installation, it will not pose a true threat to the Windows desktop OS monopoly.

Yeah, yeah, who wants that, blah blah, whatever. That's what Linux needs to succeed - simple, point and click and it just works installation and configuration (Mandrake is close and Suse [from the account of others] is perhaps closer, but both are not quite there, BTW) that is common to all distros. A tool for the drooling, unwashed masses, while we keep our "sup4r 1337 c0mm4nd l1n3 sk111z".

</rant>

Soko

It's obscure if you've never used Unix before (5, Insightful)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821632)

I mean come on guys xf86cfg isn't exactly rocket science, it no harder to use than playing with the control panel in Windows.

It's easy to use, it's just there apparently isn't some kind of control panel item or icon to run it, and no indication that the program even exists. Most Windows programs I've run across also have short, barely-sensical names for their executables, but that's why icons with pretty, fuzzy names exist - so non-geeks who've never heard of man or seen a command line can figure out what to do without calling tech support.

I can't say I'm surprised, but with some geeks installing the more user-friendly distros for their families, couldn't a few get together and figure out how to put together and sell/give away a really solid, usable Linux-based desktop computer? Maybe Wal-Mart's Mandrake PC will be this mythical machine?

Re:Obscure Unix commands...!? (1)

TummyX (84871) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821645)

Ofcourse, Windows XP will ask you, and then automatically set your display resolution and refresh rate to the optimal for your monitor when you first bootup.

The Masses Have Spoken (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821678)

You're right, there's nothing "obscure" about having to type in commands, however this prejudice against UNIX and it's clones is deeply ingrained in the mainstream IT community and one of the reasons for the prevalence of Windows. There are two ways in which this biggotry will be overcome. Firstly, "friendly" graphical tools have been developed to hide this apparent complexity and provide a familiar interface to the majority. As more of these people adopt such systems because of these friendly front-ends, some will dip under the hood and try some command line work and find out that it's not that bad after all. So the second and most important thing, education through word of mouth amongst former anti-UNIX people will help to convert the majority of those remaining. There will only be a few hard-core UNIX-haters left in years to come.

Exciting news!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821556)

"Lindows" is open source innovation at it's most pathetic. At least KOffice adds a letter to a useable product, but Lindows just swaps one. Lame.

Re:Exciting news!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821717)

...or is it Wame?

Open Source? (2, Insightful)

MikeOttawa (551441) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821565)

I thought that Lindows was based on a Linux operating system with a Wine type overlay for running Windows apps ... but did they develop everythingthing themselves?
I thought that you had to allow the source code to be available when you used code from an open source source.
It seems to me that they are charging for something that they didn't put the sweat into making.

Re:Open Source? (1)

raynet (51803) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821588)

And why shouldn't they make stupid people pay? If you can't download your GPL software for free, but instead want someone to configure, compile and install the software for you, then you should be charged for it.

And also, they only have to give the source code for the apps you have downloaded and installed.

Of course it's not positive (5, Insightful)

SpatchMonkey (300000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821583)

Because Lindows hardly measures up to Windows XP at all. It may be better than, say, Windows 95 or 98 due to stability and a decent GUI, but times have moved on since then.

NT-based Windows systems are actually pretty good. The main benefit of a Linux based system, stability, has been negated as Windows caught up quite a while ago.

Features like 'open source' and '$150 cheaper' aren't really bonuses to most PC users, when it doesn't have the feature 'runs all my Windows programs and games just fine' implemented correctly.

Re:Of course it's not positive (-1)

Anonymous Pancake (458864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821598)

first of all.. your uid fucking rocks..

I agree completely, winXP is a great OS, probably the best OS ever for general use. A good gui, compatibility, and stability.

The multi-user stuff is great also, maybe linux could learn a bit from that feature.

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

SpatchMonkey (300000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821658)

Thanks, it took ages to bump up the uids high enough to get that one :-)

My only qualm with the multi-user stuff is that if you're logging in to a domain, you can't use the terminal services stuff like fast user switching. And being able to do a remote admin login like Windows 2000 Server would be pretty useful too.

But for standalone home use, it's great.

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

brad-x (566807) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821612)

I'm afraid Windows hasn't gotten anywhere near catching up to the stability of Unix-like operating systems. As the adage goes, if you believe that you really don't have much experience putting Windows do the test.

NT based systems are not 'good', just easy. And while easy is a selling point for new users, it doesn't mean they're getting what they want from their purchase. They're getting unfair licensing, unfair business practices, and no standard of excellence.

Don't be defeatist.

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

SpatchMonkey (300000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821646)

I'm not being defeatist - this isn't a battle.

It's just a case of using the most appropriate technology for the task at hand. Windows is the most appropriate for most desktop users, and recently has the added benefit that it is pretty damn stable too.

I use Windows XP at home, and since installing it four months ago, have only rebooted three times - twice for Windows Update (comparable to the reboot required when doing a kernel update in Linux) and once because of a power cut.

I've had some stability issues in individual applications, some from Microsoft but most not. But it didn't bring the rest of the OS down, I just killed the process and started again.

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

brad-x (566807) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821673)

Granted stability is much improved since the NT kernel came into the consumer versions. I think it is troubling though that the licensing changes under the consumers nose, and even automatically.

If Windows were more stable than Unix/Linux I'd find myself hard pressed to recommend it to end users.

But yes, in many cases it is the only way to go, for now.

...for now. :P

Let's just look at the pros and cons (4, Interesting)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821684)

Lindows

Cons

  • Steep initial learning curve
  • Not as pretty
  • Not as much mainstream game support
Pros
  • Cheap price for support, software and upgrades
  • You get a full office suite
  • Less instability
  • More secure (less virii)
  • Fewer crashes
  • Good crash recover
  • Better performance

Windows (XP)

Cons

  • High Price
  • No office suite
  • Poor security (many virii)
  • More instability
  • Poor crash recovery (registry becomes more unstable over time)
  • Requires more RAM.
Pros
  • Familiar UI
  • Easy to configure
  • Mainstream games supported

There it is. Tell your friends and let them decide.

Re:Let's just look at the pros and cons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821772)


Lindows lost most people at "Steep Learning Curve" ...

Re:Of course it's not positive (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821626)

That's why RMS was right to stress the freedom aspect, and ESR was wrong to "brand" "open source" as a "business proposition".

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

DrVxD (184537) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821652)

> The main benefit of a Linux based system, stability, has been negated as Windows caught up quite a while ago.
You're funny, but I doubt anybody is going to mod you up for it...

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

SpatchMonkey (300000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821663)

No .. I'm not trolling or trying to be funny, I'm completely serious.

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

Shisha (145964) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821660)

Oh wow, so it is then just me who has not noticed and Nimbda and I Love you viruses for Linux.

If Windows caught up some years ago what are the viruses still doing there lurking around?

For me Linux (Mandrake, but I guess that's not that important) is about two things:

1, Stability and that includes no viruses, thank you very much. And this also includes suspend / unsuspend feature on my laptop. I did not have to turn it off for more than two months, simply because I just suspend it or unsuspend it moving between home and university. That way I don't care about boot times. 3-5s is fine by me.

2, Install and configure once, run forever. Even though some RPMS take a few dependencies to sort out I don't have to reinstall the system every other weekend. Besides "urpmi", the Mandrake update tool is fairly decent and if you stick to Mandrake RPMS you'll hardly get into any RPM dependency conflicts.

Re:Of course it's not positive (1)

SpatchMonkey (300000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821696)

The recent Windows email viruses have spread so rapidly for two main reasons:
  • Microsoft's Outlook products have bugs and design flaws that allow them to spread easily, with barely any human intervention.
  • Most people new to computers start off using Windows as it is the industry standard, and they don't know enough about the system to avoid doing things like, for example, opening and running executable attachments.
I would guess that if Linux was as popular as Windows is, then many new users of computers would use that too and make similar mistakes.

Outlook is an application that runs on the operating system, not part of the OS itself. This is a problem inherent in a particular piece of Microsoft software, and not Windows itself. I agree with you though, they were very careless in the creation of this product and most of the blame lies there.

It'll be interesting to see what effects the 'sandboxing' features of .NET will have on such viruses, when its usage becomes widespread. Hopefully it will raise the bar somewhat to virus writers.

As for your suspend/unsuspend feature on your laptop - this is also available in Windows. In Windows XP, there is also a similar feature that allows the computer to be completely switched off - it is called 'Hibernate' and is very useful when moving machines with no built in suspend functionality, such as desktops.

Re:Of course it's not positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821735)

Fool.

There are more virii for Windows because more people use it. if you are a virus writer you want to infect as many people as possible not just the 2 or 3 that use Linux. ... and remember that the worst virus attack of all time (technically a worm, so let's call it the worst malicious code attack) was the RTM88 Worm which attacked what? ... only *UNIX* systems. Viruses were born on the UNIX platform - it's only since they fell out of favour that people started writing for Windows.

Re:Of course it's not positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821790)



Be fair, now. When Nimda was released, M$ had already released a patch for the vulnerability it exploited.

That clueless admins did not update it is not the fault of M$, any more than clueless admins not updating, say, OpenSSH or Apache is the fault of the OpenSSH/Apache guys.

I run both unix and Windows, and I've never had a virus on either system.

Re:Of course it's not positive (2)

Zapdos (70654) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821749)

Windows has not yet caught up to Linux or UNIX in terms of stability. It may be a large leap from where it was a short time ago, it has by no means caught up. The thought that it has is no more then than a urban legend. Windows 2000 MTBF is 2,800 hours, Linux stable kernels on the other hand tend to have a average MTBF of around 15,000 hours.

Click-n-Run? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821601)

Lindows charges 100 bucks to run some hacked up and broken version of apt-get?

I just don't trust that Lindows guy. Don't like the way he interacts with the Wine people either.

No need for dumbed down Linux (4, Interesting)

Eythian (552130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821602)

Personally, I don't see the need for dumbed down versions of Linux such as Lindows. I have been using Mandrake since 7.2, and have found the latest version (8.2) more than sufficient for me, as a compulsive command-line user, and when I was last down home I installed it on my parents Celery 400, where it runs better than Win98 did (with the exception of longer startup time). To do this, and teach them how to use it, I had to learn the GUI tools for things. I then discovered that these were much more capable than they used to be. The only exposure my parents have ever had to have to the command line is that breif period after the graphic bootup screen goes away, before X has fully started. They are now happily using konqueror, kmail, and all the games that come with Linux, without problems. Every so often I sent them an email such as 'A new security release has come out. Use MandrakeUpdate.', and thats it.

Its definatly time for Linux on the non-geek desktop, and real Linux at that (none of the logged in as root business). The only thing they didn't do was the actual installation, however I am going to be doing the same conversion to my g/fs computer soon, and will let her do the install so I can see how easy it is for someone not familar with anything beyond powerpoint.

It is also important to keep in mind that there is software to do almost anything that you require avaliable for Linux if you are a casual user. It may yet be missing important applications, those that are more niche products, but all the things a typical user needs are there, such as many variations of solitaire :)

Re:No need for dumbed down Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821653)

The only thing they didn't do was the actual installation

It's not like they would have installed Windows if they were using that, so that's a non-issue.

$99 registration fee still in effect (2, Insightful)

AyeFly (242460) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821606)

In order to download Lindows from their website and try it out, you STILL have to register to be an insider! They say that when the general release comes out, it will be downloadable for free. Now that THEY ARE SELLING LINDOWS TO THE PUBLIC, shouldn't the free downloadable open source version be public?

And what about Wine (3, Insightful)

bareminimum (456719) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821610)

It is sad to read two reviews of Lindoze and none of them addresses the alleged out of the box MS code compatibility. None of the reviewers even tried to install MsOffice.. In my mind that was the most spectacular claim we've been hearing about for months. A bit more research would be appreciated. Instead we get a guy whining about his out of a dumpster single frequency monitor (he was okay at least) and the other dude complains that his eyes hurt.

I really wonder a) what refresh rate is OEM Windows set to out-of-the-box and b) what percentage of AOL users know how to change their refresh rate under Windows, let alone have a clue what a monitor refresh rate is.

Re:And what about Wine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821705)

I bought a Lindows 1.8 P4 with CD burner and 256 MB ram from Walmart. It was $599 and shipping was $15. It was delivered when they said it would be - about 10 days after I placed the order.

It installed Office 2K, but it wouldn't run until I restarted X (no kidding). It ran Word pretty slowly.

I was pretty disappointed in Lindows as an OS, but as close as I could tell the price was the same for the same machine w/o the OS.

I am downloading the RedHat beta as I type this.

Re:And what about Wine (3)

CodeMonky (10675) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821713)

Usually 60hz and changing it is a dropdown listing only the modes your monitor can display.

LindowsOS wasn't the best thing for Wal-Mart (1)

brad-x (566807) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821625)

Lindows is fun in concept but I think they fooled the marketeers into thinking it was viable.

A UNIX operating system which is blatantly different from Windows, using KDE and a full compliment of free applications which are equivalent to their Windows counterparts has actually proved in my experience to be EASIER for new users to get used to and use productively.

Unix and Linux can be quite productive without added fluff like WINE getting in the users way.

no-win (1, Interesting)

Jondor (55589) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821629)

What I feel is unfortunate is that I see the whole userexperience thing in walmart as a no-win situation due to the simple fact that the use runs as root.
If sales fail it's: Linux isn't ready for the desktop. See, see... I told ya..

If it doesn't and it becomes an overnight success the world ends up with a whole lot of linux machines which are as unsafe as windows machines.
Next step: a virus/trojan and woosh, there goes the public idea that unix is a more safe and virus resistent environment.

Of course, the details as that unix is usualy per default a lot more secure than a comparible windows machine get lost.

Oh well, let's hope I'm just in a dark mood..

Re:no-win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821807)

Unix historically has had a dismal security record. That changed somewhat in the 1990s. If you're going to 'herald' a 30 year heritage, you'd better be willing to accept what the situation was for those whole 30 years.

Jumping frogs (4, Insightful)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821630)

Bitching about LindowsOS aside, there seems to be some major misconception with Linux geeks. The NewsForge article complains towards the end people are being hustled into paying *gasp* money in order to use the Clink-n-Run system. This is "free" software. Free as in speech, not as in beer. THe misconception is that said software ought to always be free as in beer and that it is at some point free as in beer. Just because you can add a line to your sources.list and run apt-get without paying for anything directly doesn't make that download free. Someone somewhere has to pay for that. There isn't a 400 user limit on ftp.debian.org because bandwidth or rackspace is free.

Charging $99 may or may not be fair. They are a company like any other trying to make a buck so it is in their best interest to overcharge you for the service rendered. Even if they are overcharging you it is at least a decent business plan the sort that actually has a step 2 and at some point looks to make a profit for all parties involved. If you want to fuck them over and potentially keep Linux out of the hands of people who would not use it otherwise, feel free to tell every LindowsOS user about using "free" apt mirrors. Or you could let buyers figure it out for themselves which ought to be a profound experience for them. Coupled with this you might want to think about kicking back a few bucks to the LinuxISO guys or some Gentoo mirror next time you download yet another Linux distribution or emerge some new program.

Re:Jumping frogs (1)

Dunkalis (566394) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821698)

$99 is obscene for any service like this. I'd pay a reasonable amount of money for access to apt-get, as long as it A) worked, unlike Click-n-Run, and B) wasn't crazy-expensive. There is no way anyone should have to pay to access a Debian mirror, since its against the Debian philosophy, however. Lindows is a bad concept, making people think Linux is like Windows. Their business plan doesn't fly with me, either. I use SuSE, and even though there are no ISOs for the latest version, you can still do an FTP install. It costs $99 for people to BETA-TEST Lindows. Thats about as much Microsoft charges for their betas, I know. Just because MS does doesn't mean Lindows should to. I understand the "free speech, not free beer" idea, and its a very wonderful philosophy. If Lindows is committed to the GPL, they wouldn't mind people mirroring their free software archives. Someone should do that. I would, but I don't have a server.

Re:Jumping frogs (1)

mghiggins (61851) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821767)

Charging $99 may or may not be fair

The point he's making is not about fairness - it's about whether a Walmart customer who bought a system for $300 would be comfortable paying an extra $100 to get enough software to build a functional system.

He doesn't think that customer would.

He's not taking a stand on fairness one way or the other - he's just stating an opinion on the viability of the business model.

Re:Jumping frogs (5, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821776)

"...feel free to tell every LindowsOS user about using "free" apt mirrors."

They already are using "free" Debian mirrors. According to a Lindows user posting on alt.os.linux /etc/apt/sources.list contains:

deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free
deb ftp://agent:foulfowl@ftp.lindows.com/agent-pool . .

Lindows is charging for access to the Debian archive and they aren't even running their own mirror.

About the Microtel machine (5, Insightful)

Grab (126025) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821638)

You what?! I quote: "the hardware specifications were minimal: an obsolescent 850 megahertz AMD Duron processor, 128 megabytes of random-access memory (RAM), a 10-gigabyte hard drive and a CD-ROM drive".

My main machine at home is basically that spec (but with a smaller HDD). Seriously, what do you need more than that for, apart from games (which largely don't exist for Linux anyway) and heavy academic number-crunching? It's certainly enough for every office/drawing/productivity program I have, and I use it for loads of fairly serious software and electronics development work.

I really would like ppl to stop pretending that everyone needs a 2GHz processor to use a word processor. So it's not Deep Thought - so what?

Grab.

Re:About the Microtel machine (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821685)

They may not *need* it, but the price seems a bit high for that hardware all things considered. Hell, an X-Box is close to that spec and a hundred bucks cheaper, except the XBox has a higer horsepower graphics system...

It's not really necessary, but it isn't that great either...

Re:About the Microtel machine (1)

bareminimum (456719) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821732)

Now please be fair for a minute. The XBox probably is not as much of a tech support hassle as this $299 PC is. This product is sold to conform to a functionnality goal, not as a list of technical specs and numbers that ultimately mean nothing to the consumer. Now whether or not they actually deliver on their objectives is another question.

Re:About the Microtel machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821780)

Hell, an X-Box is close to that spec and a hundred bucks cheaper, except the XBox has a higer horsepower graphics system...

Probably because MS is selling each XBox below cost...

Re:About the Microtel machine (2)

danheskett (178529) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821693)

So true man, so true. The fastest machine I've ever owned was a Duron 850, and it busted. Now I am down to the previou machine, a K6-2/350 and a P5-266 laptop.

Absolutely no complaintants. Everything run very acceptably. I am obviously not a gamer, and so I am not terribly worried about it.

Re:About the Microtel machine (1)

SN74S181 (581549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821823)

I still run NetBSD on a 486DX-2 50Mhz laptop. It has the maximum 28 megs of RAM and an upgraded 2.1GB hard drive, so it's not too bad actually.

I would never run a click-n-drool Window manager on the machine, but I use FVWM2 on my fastest machines anyhow.

It's a quite useful laptop for the kinds of things I do away from 'the desktop.'

The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821642)

...and I sure understand why. The entire point of linux is to cut costs, and 100$ to download free software is a huge showstopper. Other distros come with these included on cd (though optional), and with free update tools (up2date, apt-get). The game plan is good, but the implementation of the system didn't sound quite convincing, and with a huge (on a 299$ PC, 99$ is HUGE) price tag for the software system it isn't going to work out.

Personally I'd rather think a well pre-configured standard installation of say Redhat, where it already has programs installed (which ones is bound to be a subject of many arguments, but still). Let them have a word processor/spreadsheet/email client/im client/ftp client/irc client right out of the box, and everything would be so much better. Choice is only good if there is an *informed* choice. The target marked here don't have a clue. Include OpenOffice not KOffice. Or opposite. But neither, or both isn't good. The user don't need to get flooded with choices, many of which (if Click-n-Run is anything like most open source repositories) SUCK. They don't have the time or the patience or the knowledge to find a product that works for them. You need to *show* these people what this machine can do, not wait around for "oh, sure you can install a word processor, any word processor, just pick one"

Kjella

Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run (2)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821707)

The entire point of linux is to cut costs, and 100$ to download free software is a huge showstopper.

I'm not having a go at you, but there seems to be this misconception that they are charging money for old rope as the software is free.

Maybe so, but bandwidth for you to download it isn't free, neither is hosting, testing that the products run fine, employing people to do all the tedious things that make sure the site stays running and 101 other things.

They are not charging you for the products, they're merely charging you (if you like) a proportion of the maintenance free (plus profit) so that they can make downloading software for the users as simple as possible.

There seems to be this strange idea in the Linux community that anyone who tries to make money is "selling out". Considering that unless the people who work on providing a service actually see some money to financially support them (and motivate them into not leaving) then you're never going to find people who work on open source stuff 100% of the time for free.

And I agree with you. Most open source repositories do suck. Even with a specific application you get presented with about 50 different choices (i586, mdk etc. etc.) which is totally confusing for the novice. Someone has to sort that out and present everything nicely, and unless they get paid, it's not something they're going to do as a full time job.

Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run (1)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821752)

OK, the bandwidth isn't free, but try telling J.F. Consumer that when s/he's fully aware that his/her second cousin twice removed in Kokomo downloads a Linux distro for free whenever he wants and doesn't pay a cent.

Re:The gripe seems to be about Click-N-Run (2)

vidarh (309115) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821804)

J.F.Consumer haven't even heard about Linux, much less that it's free. The amount of regular people that know about Linux is still low.

Does it really matter? (2, Insightful)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821649)

I just assumed that the whole point of this "Lindows" deal was to get a computer in the hands of consumers as cheaply as possible, M$ be damned. Once the computer gets home, it's pretty clear that the purchaser is supposed to borrow a Windows XP disk from work/their buddy, re-format the hard drive and install a pirate copy of Windows.

Thus, the main points of this exercise are to 1) give consumers really cheap computers, 2) be able to advertise that they have cheap merchandise, and 3) send a warning shot to M$ that they are too big to be bullied around.

In this sense it really doesn't matter how well Lindows performs, which is a shame because working towards a consumer-grade Linux is worthwhile endeavour.

Yes, but... (3, Informative)

CaptainPotato (191411) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821659)

Whilst I would like to call myself an experienced computer user (maybe I'm not...), I do understand the point of Lindows, regardless of whether it works or not.

Aside from the usual M$-related monopoly arguments, there does seem to be a real hope to replace Win* on the desktop - whether it is a valid attempt or not is another matter though...

About two years ago I installed Mandrake 7.0 on my then-new machine, with Win98 on a separate partition. After over a week of trying to make the two co-exist (well, Win98 didn't want to let Mandrake live), I succeeded. Linux was to be the main OS, and for a while, it was. I used StarOffice, Netscape 4.7*, and so on. Then something broke. Netscape started to fail, as did my email client. I suddenly found myself in the purgatory of root access without the faintest idea how to fix it. Given everything else that happened at the time in my life, I was forced to give up on Linux for Win98, which I knew how to fix.

Since then, Linux has not been on my machine, but there is not a single day that goes by that I don't long for its return (and for the return of the Amiga ahead of Linux, but that's another story...), and to be able to dump Win* for good. So what, I lose a few games, but I cannot remember the last time I loaded one anyway. I see that Mandrake 8.2 is much improved, Open Office works great on Win98 and Opera is now on Linux to boot (you don't think I use IE, do you?)

Despite all this, I don't dare risk Linux at the moment, given that I cannot afford the downtime on my machine. Lindows looks promising, and the idea of buying a machine with a pre-installed version of Linux that has at least *some* Win* compatibility is a start.

Cut Lindows some slack. Sure, maybe there are a few GPL issues that need examining, and maybe it does not work perfectly yet. And the $99 download fee does not appeal either. Whether it is Lindows, Red Hat or Mandrake, surely the important issue is replacing Win* on pre-built systems, rather than the (whilst nice, ultimately technical) minor points of those outlined at the start of this paragraph?

Konqueror and kmail. (2)

Moritz Moeller - Her (3704) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821666)

Well at least the SJM author had no problems with the KDE applications konqueror and kmail. Obviously these components are already at a point where a windows user can use them without any problem.

Curiously missing: Attempts to install MS Office or games or any other win32 program on this wine derived Lindows.

OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3821670)

Buy a Mac, get OS X. You'll be happy.

Two points I don't understand (3, Insightful)

ishark (245915) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821672)

1- why use Lindows. I understand that it sounds like windows, but they are quite new to the "desktop" arena compared to people like Mandrake. And by paying Mandrake you get CDs/DVD full of precompiled stuff, without the need for huge downloads.

2- The Lindows business model is flawed. If they think that AFTER buying the PC users are ready to shell out the cash for the applications they are dreaming (it may work for games - good ones - or some advanced app, like openoffice, but all the "useful" things must be in from the start). Giving out for a price the CDs full of stuff may work, but people from the Windows world just assume that as soon as windows is in place all the applications can be obtained for free from the neighbour (before flaming compute the ratio of windows users you know and windows users who bought Office for home use - for me it's beyond 50). The "free" point of linux is much less strong than people think, at least until Palladium or some other random heavy element forces users to pay for what they use.

Overall, if this takes off I'll be surprised.

Re:Two points I don't understand (2)

jilles (20976) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821787)

The likely scenario Walmart is counting on is that users buy the machine, even though both are aware that lindows is crap. Once home, the user pops in one of those windows setup cds (e.g. borrowed from neighbour).

What won't happen is that linux users will buy this machine and pop in a mandrake or debian cd. The reason is that linux users generally spend more money on their hardware and are unlikely to want a low budget PC.

In any case, Lindows is indeed likely to fail unless they add loads of value to their product. Right now any user friendly linux distribution beats them easily (Mandrake, Suse, ...) and if there's only a slight sign of pre-installed linux working, they'll jump on it.

Lindows?? (1)

Botchka (589180) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821781)

This is a great time for me to mention this. Linux will NEVER make the inroads it wants to user desktops until it becomes more like Windows. That's right! I said it! I've been in computer tech support for the last 5 years at an advanced level and learned to program on a TRS-80 pc and Alpha Micro Midframe almost 20 years ago, so I feel qualified in saying this. The masses of end-users are experienced in the way that Windows functions. It's gui as become synonymous with "ease of use" and is as ubiquitous as Coke, Fisher Price, and AOL. In otherwords, Windows is the standard people. Most everyone can buy a television and turn it on with the remote and maybe even change the channels and volume without resorting to reading a huge technical manual to figure it out. This is 'good enough' for most people because there is a standard set that the market bears in design on tv's. Now....this is not to say that a gadget freak or someone who cares would like said, basic tv. These are the people who would dive headfirst into HDTV, Dolby 5.1 surround with 150 watts to each channel, etc., etc., etc, without breaking a sweat. All I'm saying is that an os will have a greater market share if it's 'dumbed down'. If you don't believe me, look at AOL. Most of us on the inside of the computer field, don't consider AOL to be a 'real' isp, but they have something on the order of 30 gazillion users. A blind monkey with no arms and a stick stuck to his forehead could use it. Does it make it right? NO! I'm not a real fan of dumbing anything down for the sake of money but it's a fact of life. Unless you care about the inner workings of a pc, Linux doesn't matter to you...unless they can dumb it down for the masses. Lindows sounds like it's making some sort of attempt at doing this by making the icons 'double clickable' and "There is even an icon labelled "C:", which is actually equivalent to the /home directory in a normal Linux installation." I'm sure I've offended all of you Linux users. Hey, I even dual boot between Windows XP and Linux. I happen to LOVE Linux, but then again, I'm a self confessed computer nerd. Just my 2cents.....

Re:Lindows?? (2)

aallan (68633) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821835)

Okay, I've got karma to burn, may as well use it...

This is a great time for me to mention this. Linux will NEVER make the inroads it wants to user desktops until it becomes more like Windows. That's right! I said it! I've been in computer tech support for the last 5 years at an advanced level...

Frankly, who cares? Why should I care if Linux never makes major inroads into the user desktop? Why does this affect me? I'm still going to be writing software for UNIX, and probably whatever replaces UNIX on the academic desktop, which definately won't be Windows for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly money... I'm currently nudging my boss to buy me a MacOS X box to see how easy our legacy software is going to port to that, although my guess our current Linux port won't need that much tweaking to run on MacOS X. On the flip side most of our next generation of software is in cross platform languages (Perl and Java) so its a declining problem.

Why should I care if some random joe off the street can run the stuff I crank out? What is this obsession everyone seems to have these days about getting Linux adopted by the mass market?

Al.

Hey, Wait one damn Minute! (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 12 years ago | (#3821794)

This is actually great and wonderful if you just think about it.

This is like what, version 1 of Lindows? Aren't Windows users used to the first version being crap?

And about the need to log on, pay for, and download what is otherwise free software....

Doesn't the Windows user expect this, I mean with the comming of .net and all in the plans of MS.
Except for here the user gets to discover that there are other options, unlike the MS plan, and such
other options that they might find very interesting and pleasant.

There is the trick of the dishonest to present truth to lure in and trap people.
But here, if you think about it, it's the opposite.

The only thing that needs to happen here is that for people to find out they can get a linux box for
about $300 plus monitor and find a local Linux user groups for the rest, which includes software and
some degree of support and training.

And then there is Version 2 of Lindows......

And by the time there is a version three....well, that won't happen as Lindows will have enlightened
many to the falacy of there can only be 3 versions before everything begins again.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>