×

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!

Review of New Xandros 4.1 Professional Linux

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the making-linux-simpler-for-luddites dept.

139

holden writes "OpenAddict has a review of the new Xandros 4.1 professional.Some of the big changes in professional include a newer kernel, AIGLX, and support for 3G wireless. One of the subtle, but still very important changes, is that Xandros has finally removed the registration requirement, and users can now access Xandros Networks without registering first. Techworld is one of many that is already looking at Xandros as a possible challenger to Windows Vista"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

139 comments

What's its niche? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108190)

I first heard of Xandros when No Starch Press based their book Linux Made Easy [amazon.com] on the distro. I assumed it was a distro meant for those with simple home needs. But here we hear about a "professional" edition. What's the niche of the distro, and how do its maintainers intend to set it apart from the many other options out there?

Re:What's its niche? (-1, Troll)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108334)

Would you like me to wipe your ass and do your homework too?

"Xandros is a distribution based on Debian that is meant for home users and small businesses that use older versions of Windows (98, ME, 2000) while letting those users utilize all of their saved information from Microsoft Office by using CodeWeaver's CrossOver Office, which seamlessly installs and runs a variety of Windows' programs. Xandros is specifically designed for people who have only known and used Windows and offers solitude from viruses, et al. as well as freedom since Xandros is on the Linux platform."

Pretty much it does everything else Linux will do. Offer different annoyances from the other OSs. Windows annoys me off and on throughout the week, upgrades that break things, security holes, DRM, nagging popup warnings (YES YOU CUNT! If I'm using RDP then I either goddamn well know what I'm doing or I'm just a dumb luser following directions, don't make me click thru another warning.). Linux offers me the chance to take a week to find the program that does what I want, in 2006 you don't write your own Linux software because no one else has, you do it because theres so goddamned much of it you can't find what you need and the elistist 'experts' won't throw you bone and help you get on with your computing efforts. The Mac OS offers me the chance to be prick to the general public (much like I'm doing now) almost every day. I can make all sorts of pretty movies and "things just work" oh except when you have to install something like say a database so you can do your work when, OH BOY, you get to drop into Linux shell again.

At least when there was DOS you didn't have the illusion of unlimited options. By the time you installed any decent software you had already sat there for hours swapping floppies (it sounded dirty and we liked it that way) and after you invested that time and money well by god you were going to use that piece of software no matter what.

Re:What's its niche? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108390)

Idiot jackass. People like you set Open Source back YEARS.

Re:What's its niche? (2, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108424)

No people like me understand the realities of the situation. I use more pleasant language, but I have both shot down and supported open source projects on the job. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Everyone has promised total solutions over the years using a given OS, source philosophy, or magic software. No one of them is a solution.

Part of my ire comes from the jerkwad parent poster who couldn't even read the executive summary paragraph. Still though, I don't have a choice for what works, I have a choice for what takes less of time time and breaks less.

Re:What's its niche? (0, Flamebait)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109012)

Open Sores can weep for all I care.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:What's its niche? (0, Troll)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110184)

*Dies laughing* Oh. I wasn't laughing at the joke. I was laughing at the failure. Anywho, Another Linux distro for me to think "Hmmm. maybe THIS will work?" and run smoothly for a while, then the bastard errors will show up, refusing me somthing. First Ubuntu decided I dont need networking. Mandrake decided it doesn't love any of my hardware. Ubuntu then decided that Windows XP should die, along with my personal files *COUGH DEFINATELYNOTDOWNLOADEDGAMES* and then it picked on Win 98 as well. Finally Ubuntu then made Vista just stop booting. Linux is too much for me. Hardware is volitile. I JUST CANT HANDLE IT.

Re:What's its niche? (2, Interesting)

quanticle (843097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108634)

I would suspect (I haven't used this particular version) that its niche is the same as RedHat/SuSE. It aims to be a Linux distribution mainly for business use, with a specific emphasis on Windows compatibility.

That said, I would like to see how Xandros reacts to the Novell/Microsoft deal. With Novell poised to take the lead in Windows compatibility, it seems that Xandros is fading into another "me-too" Debian based distro.

Re:What's its niche? (0, Flamebait)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109644)

At least it is not following Mepis, possible Kanotix and Linspire and becoming another "me-too" Ubuntu based distro (which is itself a me-too Debian distro.)

Re:What's its niche? (2, Interesting)

Burz (138833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109064)

For small-medium sized businesses Xandros is a good alternative to SuSE, I'd say, having moved between the two myself. Xandros can be configured extensively through the GUI, but the control panel is much more coherent than SuSE's; the former also wins hands-down for effective samba configuration.

FWIW, this Xandros 4.1 Professional Edition seems to be the replacement for Xandros Business Edition; they are both aimed at desktops. The only thing really new for Xandros niche-wise is their enterprise-level server.

Re:What's its niche? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17109084)

It's niche? It's like a commercial debian, except much better than progeny. Everything just works, even more so than ubuntu.

I used to use it, but I felt bad for stealing, so now I use kubuntu.

For the non-technical, it's worth the money. IMO it's the best 'desktop' linux in existence.

    For the geeks, you'll probably want to install something like kubuntu and tweak it until it works like xandros (ntfs support, aiglx, nvidia drivers, wifi drivers, etc). They add a lot of value to debian, but I dunno if they add $99 worth if you have geek skills.

I noticed they have aiglx support. That about sums up how they are different from other distros. If you've tried to install beryl/aiglx on ubuntu, you can appreciate that it works out of the box with xandros. All of those little things that aren't quite there yet with ubuntu that you bang your head on until it works are there with xandros.

Re:What's its niche? (2, Informative)

fangorious (1024903) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109702)

Ubuntu/Kubuntu 6.10 have AIGLX, and 7.04 will have the fglrx and nv proprietary drivers in the default install.

Linux interface just like windows?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108228)

For all the MS bashing in the linux world, why do all distributions use a crappy gui that tries to copy the crappy startmenu/explorer interface of MS? It sucks, copy apple at the very least.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108238)

???

Personally I use stock fluxbox and an xterm.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108302)

That's a personal choice of the user (choice, might be a new word for you, google it if you don't exeactly know what it means....).

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (2, Interesting)

Nanpa (971527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108368)

I can honestly tell you now that the startmenu is far superior. And the windows key is one of the most useful buttons on my keyboard (But then again, I'm lazy).

The shared bar between applications on MacOS still infuriates me

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108520)

Now if only the Windows Start Menu followed the usual Gnome way with the programs menu. Instead, you get a jumbled list of subfolders, links dumped right into the root of start menu > programs, etc. It doesn't auto-sort by default, there are two folders to keep track of for every user, and auto-placed shortcuts tend to be in vendor subfolders... So not only do you have to remember the name of that obscure app you use once a month, you have to remember who made it.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (1)

MysticOne (142751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108532)

Why does it infuriate you? It's not like you can use more than one of them at one time, and it saves screen real-estate because everything doesn't have to have its own.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108716)

It's not like you can use more than one of them at one time...


Maybe you can't, but I can.

Sloppy focus, baby.

and it saves screen real-estate because everything doesn't have to have its own.


Sticking the menu way at the top of the screen doesn't solve the real-estate problem. It wastes a ton of space, too, if you have a wide screen. I'd prefer it if the menus above windows (and other unnecessary controls) simply disappeared when focus is lost.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (1)

MysticOne (142751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108752)

Ummm, sloppy focus isn't going to let you have the focus on more than one window at one time. You simply don't have to click to navigate the windows. So you're still stuck with the same problem. I do agree about wasting a little bit of space at the top if you have a wide screen, but ... meh. Having it go all the way across the top is still less space than each application having its own menu bar.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (1)

gsn (989808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108954)

By the same token - meh I don't care if each application has its own menu bar - makes me have to move the mouse less if I have to do something in an app that doesn't have focus yet.

Besides there are plenty of ways to save even more space. The real waste of space isn't the menubar - its the window decorations. I keep windows around on my desktop for games but I use Zen on my laptop with Fluxbox - I like having everything at the click of a mouse and if you turn off window decorations and bind some keys to close minimize and maximize then you typically save as much space as eliminating the menubar and at the same time the fluxbox bar is a lot smaller than the os x dock. Theres no icons on your desktop by default in fluxbox (you can add them with rox or adesklets) so theres that much less clutter and combine all this with the goodness of sloppy focus and you barely move your mouse. Very elegant.

What I will give Windows is how quick it is to pick up - from what I've seen atleast - YMMV. The amount of free screen space in the end probably depends more on the user. I've a very sparse Windows desktop and I've seen Mac users cover their desktops in icons and make sure their dock is filled with every application even if they don't use most of them.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108988)

That's ridiculous. Just to edit a web page you need an editor, a browser and an ftp client. I run em' in seperate windows.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108662)

Once you get used to it, though, it's really nice. Why should every application waste screen space with a menu bar?

Anyway, I'm posting from my PowerBook right now...

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108820)

Why should I move the mouse cursor to the top of the screen every time I want to access a menu? If you have multiple instances of an application open and you don't keep track what exact instance has the focus at the moment you might fuck something up out of confusion.
There are many flaws to this system as well. I can't stand it personally and even though I don't like it the "normal way" either (you're right that it e.g. wastes space) I'd prefer each application with it's own menu bar to the osx style.

Also Xandros uses KDE where the option for a osx-like top menu bar is just a radio button away (only for KDE applications though). :)

Re: Menu Bars (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109800)

I *started* with the *Mac* introduction to menubars, back about 1986. Windows was merely EmbraXtending the original brilliant design. Now, fully a quarter of my job is about wandering the weird options buried in menus to solve nuisances for those above me who decide they shouldn't have to care. I became grumpy with IE7 taking away my menubar, and found the command to put it back, and back at the *top* of the screen.

Again there are alternating comments upon the ease of use of Xandros. I'm a moderate user... on Windows. This makes all my knowledge completely worthless for Linux, and I'll be reduced to beginner's luck. Y'all who are already experts don't need convincing. "Newbs are where your target audience is". I'd like to think I'm a semi intelligent Newb(N), but then I also can't seem to navigate the RMVehicle efficiently either.

Since I switched out of MacOS about 1998, I've used about fifteen Windows systems. When it comes time soon for me to do the Big Switch, I'll keep some detailed notes. Anyone interested?

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (2, Informative)

Sir Homer (549339) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108378)

They are trying to target Windows users and make the system easy for those not familiar with Linux. It is suppose to work in theory.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108446)

It is suppose to work in theory.
One should hope so.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108968)

It doesn't.
Back in the day we built an LTSP system using qvwm because it tried to look like Windows. The thinking was that it would ease the entry for the user. It was a failure, by and large, because Linux might be able to be made to look like Windows but it doesn't behave like Windows, nor does it like to be treated like Windows. Now we throw fluxbox at them and it breaks that 'this is Windows' mindset. Gives us a lot less trouble.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (2, Interesting)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108956)

Both GUIs suck wildly. They are slow as hell and everything clutters up the place and the apps get in each others way.

  A nice fluxbox/windowmaker, multi screen, I run 5 with keyboard shortcuts CTRL/Right-Left arrows. So a bunch of instantly accesible windows. No damn bar at all. Right click on vacent screen, or the wierd key between the windose and ctrl keys on the right, for a menu. Lots of keyboard shortcuts. Alt-m for mail is as fast as you can do it.

  It's so much faster and easier than any of the commercial setups.

    PenGun
  Do What Now

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Transition, transition, transition! (4, Insightful)

mungtor (306258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109566)

The issue/problem is trying to unseat Windows as the current/incumbent OS. Many efforts are made to give Linux distos a "Windows" feel simply because that is what people are used to. In order to educate people that the OS is NOT what the story is all about, you need to show them an interface that they are comfortable with and willing to work within. When all the applications that they want to run *just run*, then they might understand.

One of the biggest conceits within the Linux community is "Of course it't better, so just use it". Even if it's true, you need to help people along the path. Think of it as a language. If I could *prove* that, for example, Esperanto was a better and more efficient language for communication I would have a hard time making people switch if it was completely unlike anything they had ever seen before. There needs to be a strong tie to the language they already know to ease the pain of switching, or else it just isn't worth it.

I could ramble on about the problems, and where Linux apps really aren't as polished as Windows (Gaim vs Trillian for example) but I'm pretty drunk right now. Typing this much has been a pretty significant accomplishment. :)

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (2, Interesting)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110014)

Please, Mac makes beautiful hardware.

As far as the OS goes its pretty but a distant second to Windows.

I have a Mac and a PC (XP) and I won't take sides on what's a better overall system because both
have their merits. But in terms of usability, OSX has that infuriating icon bar at the bottom
which doesn't nest with sublevels. The file system has a weird horizontal orientation in the
'explorer' which smacks of "we need to look different from Windows" logic. The window maximize
feature (which doesn't lock to the screen) is also infuriating. But most of all... and this is
something that I cannot forgive Apple for: The one button mouse is fundamentally inferior.
Support for two buttons is limited in the OS.

Apple is always getting credit for being design intensive -- but this is more of an aesthetic
judgement IMHO. Microsoft (as much as I love to bash them) deserves far more credit than they
get for designing an extraordinarily usable UI.

My two cents of course. Nothing intended as a flame here. As I said, I have both machines
and use them both.

Re:Linux interface just like windows?! (2, Insightful)

Lavene (1025400) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110076)

For all the MS bashing in the linux world, why do all distributions use a crappy gui that tries to copy the crappy startmenu/explorer interface of MS? It sucks, copy apple at the very least.
Sometimes even MS get something right and the interface introduced with W95 is, in my opinion anyway, one of those things. I really like the basic idea behind that GUI. I do not however like how they do their operating system. I prefer *nix so by using GNU/ Linux with KDE I get the best of two worlds.
One typical Linux thing that's not in Win that I particulary like is the ingenious pager. I have just a 15" display and utilizing multiple desktops makes handelig of many open programs a breeze. So by having browser and email apps on one desktop, my terminals and ftp client in another and my development tools in a third I completly avoid a taskbar that's crowded beyond belief and I don't have to jugle 15 windows on a small workspace.
So maybe I'm not a certified Windows hater/ Linux zealot but atleast I have a very comfortable desktop...

I stopped reading at "Beagle" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108274)

That's Novells Mono encroaching on Gnome bogosity. If recent events have taught us anything, they taught us not to trust Novell or Microsoft.

Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only?? (1, Interesting)

Halvy (748070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108416)

http://www.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition. html# [xandros.com]


Thats all I found after nearly a 1/2 hour of searching their site.

Even DistroWatch doesn't have access to a totaly free version of their work.

If this is true then they are seriously violating the GPL-- if they are under it :(


-- Firmly entrenched at the very bottom of 'Terrible Karma'.. now I can FINALLY speak my mind..

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (4, Informative)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108486)

You can distribute a disc that has GPL software along with non-GPL software on it. As long as you include the source for all the GPL software you're not necessarily breaking any GPL rules.

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (1, Offtopic)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108572)

True enough. And I can refuse to go anywhere near it. Choice is good!

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (0, Offtopic)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109500)

To whatever monkey who learned how to use a keyboard who modded my last post offtopic, let's run down what "offtopic" means. It means "off" the "topic". Isn't that easy?

The topic is Xandros Linux. The post was about Xandros Linux. See the problem here?

This post, on the other hand, is offtopic. It is also a flame. Please feel free to moderate accordingly and properly.

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (1)

div_2n (525075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108656)

Not only that, but contrary to popular belief, a Linux distro company is not required by the GPL either to provide the source for download or even to provide the source with a copy of the distro disks. Section 3 of the GPL makes it very clear that the minimum required is a written offer to provide the source.

The companies that include by default do so out of good practice and community spirit.

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109218)

The companies that include by default do so out of good practice and community spirit.

Well, that, and it's probably easier to just throw the source in a tarball on an ftp server and forget about it than train a secretary on dealing with an obscure request that only comes up twice a year.

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (1)

pigscanfly.ca (664381) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108678)

Also, on a less than entirely random note, the Open Circulation edition of Xandros is not limmited to 30 days, but naturally it doesn't have all of the third party software that Xandros has licensed for inclusion with its for $ versions.

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17109002)

I believe 4.0 OCE (Open Circulation Edition) will be available soon. The current version of Xandros OCE is 3.0 and isn't representative of the current product.... 4.0 is much better.

Re:Xandro 'Free Copy' Consists Of A 30 Trial Only? (1)

GnuAge (528559) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110512)

I wonder if I'll be able to upgrade my OCE 3.0 install to OCE 4.0. Apt-get seems to work well enough on OCE 3.0 and Debian is pretty good at upgrading distros. OCE 3.0 is pretty old (Woody based, I believe) and there don't seem to be any updates recently.

For a system that is supposed to work friendly with a Windows environment OCE 3.0 has some serious limitations. As a normal user I can't write to a Samba share every other Linux distro I've used has no trouble with. I have to change files on the server as root or use FISH/SSH. Pretty annoying.

I rather like the Explorer-like Xandros File Manager [wikipedia.org] but I still tend to use Konqueror since XFM doesn't support tabs and had limited Kioslave functionality. Also, K3B isn't in the Xandros OCE repository and CD burning is limited to 4X (oh well, I'm not in a hurry).

I could just blow Xandros away and install a modern distro, but it still works fine for web surfing and listening to MP3s and I don't see the point in burning a few hours with a new install and all the attendent fiddling just to overcome a few minor annoyances.

I am impressed (3, Informative)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108548)

Techworld is one of many that is already looking at Xandros as a possible challenger to Windows Vista"

I am one of the very few slashdotters that have publicly said that Xandros, Freespire and especially Xandros are one of the best distros out there. I even contributes a few days ago that these distros actaully work as advertised.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208360&cid=169 89294 [slashdot.org].

What came out of that contribution was being touted as one who had contributed flamebait!

Now, with this view from Techworld, I feel very happy inside. This makes me wonder why there is all this hype about K[U]buntu, which is dogged with all sorts of bugs. Thanks once again to the folks at Xandros.

Re:I am impressed (4, Insightful)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108698)

I guess I fail to understand this constant search for a possible challenger to Windows. There is a large segment of society that will never change from Windows no matter what the Linux distros come up with. Linux needs to be sold to the young for what it does best, stability, security, simplicity. It isn't going to be cause we can look close to Windows. And yes I am a Linux user.

Re:I am impressed (2, Interesting)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109524)

The way I see it is like this: what will the rest of the world using Windows ver:Whatever go to if Microsoft goes in the deep end/bites the dust - suddenly the only people making anything for Windows are the 3rd party application and gaming industry. That means no more security updates - leaving 90% of the average computer using world vulnerable to spyware, viruses, and script-kiddies "You've been H4XX0R3D!11!!??!"

*IF* such a case were to happen, and beings that Apple with their Mac OS-X runs only on Mac hardware (which costs a bundle compared to normal PC hardware), and that I don't see everybody running out to buy a Mac ("But this computer worked fine, now I need a Mac?") I would say OS-X is kinda out of the question the way things are.

Since OSX is out of the picture now as an OS to convert to, that leaves Linux and BSD variants. Out of the 2, I would think that Linux would be more likely for 2 big reasons. 1: more people currently use Linux than BSD as far as I know right now. 2: even among people that aren't at all geeky (and don't want to be), I can bet you more people have at least heard of Linux running on servers and whatnot - and even if they haven't heard of Linux, mention it and they'll go "What the heck is that?" - whereas if you try to tell them about BSD, I can see a person saying something like "BSD? What is that, the new name for LSD/Acid?"

Now that we've for sure narrowed it down to Linux, people will want to know which distro is most compatible with their Windows apps (you actually expected people to realize there are OSS alternatives?) which distribution is most user-friendly (not even having to user CLI - ever, because it has a front-end application to manipulate configuration files with check-boxes and radio buttons), and which distro works best out of the box (mp3, mpg, etc playback) which I would include with user-friendly.

And from the way I see it - *THAT* is why (or at least partly why) there is continually a search for a Linux competitor to WindowsXP and Vista (or whatever version is out or coming out).

Re:I am impressed (3, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109756)

I think the search comes from MS being a powerful and unethical entity. When you have that much power, that much money, that much clout with governments and you are completely unconcerned with ethics or morals then people see you as a danger to them and others.

Add to that a company which seems to be floudering with their flagship products and promising to go on a lawsuit binge and you can see trouble coming from a mile away.

Re:I am impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17110530)

If I can add one thing to this insightful comment, it would be to let those who refuse to even look at something (IMHO) more useful and secure than Windows, whether it be Mac OSX, Linux, or BSD suffer for their ignorance.

Those that want an alternative to spyware, viruses and the like will seek alternatives out themselves. Being a Linux user I have had opportunities to show others that they need not suffer at the hands of Bill Gates et al.
Yes, I have run in to my fair share of complainers and closed minded windows users that refuse to impartially evaluate other OS's, but they are the type never likely to change. Those that want to learn will, given the opportunity. Being evangelical about FOSS is a great way to make them stay with Windows. I guess the best way to put it would be inform, don't preach.

Just my anonymous 2 cents...

Re:I am impressed (0, Offtopic)

juhaz (110830) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108710)

What came out of that contribution was being touted as one who had contributed flamebait!

It was modded a flamebait it WAS a flamebait. And this one was too, not because you're praising Xandros, but because you're making baseless accusations or at least vast overgeneralizations and mudslinging other distros with them.

So maybe Ubuntu didn't work for you out of the box and Xandros did, and as such one must be worthless piece of shit ant the other best ever. Guess what? That doesn't happen to everyone, no matter how much you'd like to think you're the center of the Universe, the situation is reversed for few million other folks out there.

Re:I am impressed (2, Interesting)

stinerman (812158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108726)

This makes me wonder why there is all this hype about K[U]buntu, which is dogged with all sorts of bugs.


Ku/Xu/Ubuntu is free as in beer. Of course, Freespire is as well, but they have the "we used to be Lindows and the community turned its back on us" gorilla on their back to this day. They've made good strides and I've suggested it as a Windows replacement to a few family members.

Another thing is that Ubuntu has pretty successfully taken most of the ideals of the Free Software movement and made a pretty polished distro that Just Works. They do a good job of straddling the line between idealism and functionality. I went to Debian Etch from Ubuntu Dapper mostly because I used a lot from universe which was updated regularly in Etch. And, of course, Shuttleworth has thrown tons of cash at Ubuntu in order to help make it the disto du jour.

I can't speak to how good either distro is because I've not tried them. If it works for you, that works for me.

Re:I am impressed (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108762)

This makes me wonder why there is all this hype about K[U]buntu, which is dogged with all sorts of bugs.

Tell me about it. I like kubuntu as a live CD, and so I tried deploying it "for real" for a group of four workstations which needed a temporary *nix desktop. It was a nightmare. For some reason, two of the machines were never able to apt-get a particular package because of a circular dependency. With adequate documentation(1) and a tiny bit of time, I might have figured out the solution. But with only six hours to get four machines deployed with a minimal desktop, there was no way. I ended up building the required packages from source.

(1) As a long time FreeBSD user, I have to ask: why the fsck can't any Linux distro manage to produce decent documentation? Other than an occasional install howto, Linux documentation is horrendous and woefully incomplete.

Re:I am impressed (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108854)

"As a long time FreeBSD user, I have to ask: why the fsck can't any Linux distro manage to produce decent documentation? Other than an occasional install howto, Linux documentation is horrendous and woefully incomplete."

  We are just so relaxed about computers ... we just wing it.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:I am impressed (1)

L7_ (645377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109018)

Did you try to "--purge remove" the packages and then re-"install" them? if you are doingn it from the command line, somehow I've picked up somewhere that you should use 'aptitide' and not 'apt-get' (although at this point I am fuzzy on the difference between them) because "it handles dependencies better". Else, from the Synaptic UI, it should have been easy to uninstall the package in question and reinstall it.

And since I went from HPUX directly to GNU/Linux, I can't say that I have any idea what sort of documentation that FreeBSD has (although I am sure it is pretty good).

Re:I am impressed (1)

Duggeek (1015705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109312)

RE:(1) — Did you happen to try adept [ubuntu.com]? ...or explore the Ubuntu wiki [ubuntu.com]? ...how about the forums [ubuntuforums.org]? Anyone can tell you that apt-get is a fair package-installer, but not the best at package management. Had you tried adept, you may have been able to find a solution in time.

Personally, I use original-flavor Ubuntu. (Gnome) I understand KDE is regarded as a more powerful environment, but it certainly has its flaws.

The kUbuntu documentation is very informative regarding some of the basic functions. (even after it is installed) It has a good description of how to use adept there.

For a FreeBSD advocate, I'm surprised that you didn't try the enhanced UI first.

Best of luck for next time!

Re:I am impressed (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109794)

YES I tried adept. I only decended down to the apt-get level when I couldn't get adept to work.

And yes, I went online to the forums. Which is a poor source for primary documentation, especially if you're trying to set up a networking (another problem I had with k/ubuntu). The forums didn't help, but three pages into a google search, I found a clue that eventually led me to the cause of the problem. The X package I was installing needed a newer Y package but older Z package. I couldn't figure out how to downgrade/upgrade either one. Even after blowing way both dependencies and starting over, the problem remained. But two other installs on identical hardware did not have this problem. The difference between these four systems was that two were installed while the network was down and two after the network came back up.

On any decent system, I should have been able to quickly find the documentation to help me determine the problem with the dependencies. Maybe it wouldn't have told me how to fix it, but at least I could have saved a couple of hours online reading forums.

Re:I am impressed (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110164)

I'm not surprised, to be honest. I was a hardcore Debian user for years, but gave up on it quite some time ago because of problems exactly like the one you had. Debian, and I'd imagine its various derivatives, is vastly, hugely overrated. Gentoo has issues, but I've not come across the same level of broken dependencies stuff that just plain didn't work as I did with Debian.

I love Xandros (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108940)

I'm a fairly experienced user, and I love Xandros... Whoever says Xandros is for newbs needs to give it another look. It's nice to have a distro that 'just works'. Its not always the most up to date on things, but Xandros tends to use what's stable and avoids upgrading packages unless there is a significant need to do so or there's a security issue.

Another thing is the default KDE. I really don't like gnome, so I like having a distro that doesn't include it... Less wasted hard drive space. For those that do like gnome, however, you can always get it off Xandros networks, and it integrates relatively well...

Another thing that makes Xandros so good is the forums.... The community is very tight knit and tries their very best to help when there are issues, and I'd venture a guess that over half of all questions are resolved the first time.

Some of their marketing is pretty dumb (Premium membership?), and Xandros Antivirus blows (All it is is a proprietary front end on ClamAV, and dazuko isn't even included), but overall the distro is great and the community is what really makes it a distro worth using.

It is definitely worth checking it out if you haven't... Oh and if you bump into redrum on the forum, well, that's me :)

Re:I am impressed (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109958)

Ubuntu is the most stable and bugfree distro I have ever seen. I used to hate Linux and switched to FreeBSD for awhile when the quality went downhill starting with mandrake and redhat 7.x where core dumps happened by the hour due to bugs. Gentoo didn't help either and I used that for awhile when it was popular.

But Ubuntu restored my faith in Linux.

Re:I am impressed (1)

hondamankev (1000186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110292)

I dont understand the Ubuntu hype, personally.

I've tried the last 3 releases, and its no better and in some cases substantially worse, than Fedora. I cant speak for the others as I've not tried them.

Mark me as flamebait, thats fine. Just my personal experience. Ubuntu isnt the second coming as some would lead you to believe.

Features? (4, Interesting)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108586)

Seamless access to shared Windows folders and printers

The ability to write to Windows NTFS partitions

Seamless Microsoft Exchange connectivity

If an enterprise already has a Windows environment, why would they be interested in upsetting everything and installing new Linux workstations? I'm not saying Linux can't perform, but keep in mind that if things are running smooth already, the least of their costs are going to be Windows client licenses. They are spending money on Windows servers for file storage, mail, directory services, etc, so they may as well use Windows as the client software as well. Vista isn't going to be this enormous expenditure because most corporate computers will not upgrade to Vista until the computer hardware is replaced anyway.

This sounds like just another one of these "Linux Is Read and Poised To Overthrow Microsoft on the Desktop!" articles that Slashdot sees every couple months (especially around the end of the year, when next year just might be the Year of Linux).

Re: Unique features? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108614)

Seamless access to shared Windows folders and printers
The ability to write to Windows NTFS partitions
Seamless Microsoft Exchange connectivity

Can't I already do that with debian?

Re: Unique features? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109360)

I bought the Xandros a month or so ago. I tried using it. Although it installed well (as is the case with most Linux distro's these days), I was unhappy with the selection and even the philosophy. The main thing that bothered me most was that I could find nearly no software on their network and most of what was installed out of date. I also didn't like the idea that all these facilities touted in these posts were only available on a paid for basis. The home edition didn't even have basic things such as the ability to play movies or listen to music. You had to pay for the premium. Didn't make alot of sense to charge for the these basic facilities.

I could have just gone and installed this stuff by getting the packages and struggling with them. I even started to do that, but I found there were almost NO repositories for it. When I went looking for info on the forums most people were not happy with either the software selection, the philosophy, or the registration mechanism.

Let's just say I was disappointed and went looking for a distro that had the software I wanted (basic essential stuff for a home system). I paid about $100 for it and then had to abandon it. I don't know what their 4.1 professional is but I suspect it is exactly more of the same.

Re:Features? (1)

Darkinspiration (901976) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108706)

True, but it depend a by on your licensing setup. if your windows server are 2k and your license are by connection it could unable you replace your aging windows 98 client at a low cost for an os that can probably run on your actual hardware or you can change the hardware of your client it makes no differerance since the cal are assigned to you server. If your license per seat. You are forced to keep the same hardware on the client but you can replace the os since the cal is assigned to the machine. Now this might be a bit different with 2k3 since they have changes the licence term for the cal.

Re:Features? (3, Insightful)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108900)

If it's a computer running Windows 98 I'd highly doubt it would be able to run a modern Linux distro adequately. I've dealt with that on older computers such as a Dell Optiplex GX1 (450mhz p3 w/512 ram). Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, Suse, Mandriva, etc, all run rather poorly. 2000 will run usably, so will XP if you disable the fisher price theme.

Re:Features? (1)

hysterik (4400) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109560)

Adequately? I've installed Ubuntu Edgy on a 433mhz celeron system, with half as much memory and it ran quite well. I wouldn't use it for playing modern video games, but for what most people use a computer for it is more than adequate. I installed Windows XP on a second partition, and found it to run comparable to the Ubuntu install, if not slightly slower.

Re:Features? (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109802)

The only "modern" OS I've gotten to run well on old hardware is BeOS. I have an old PII and BeOS is much faster and more responsive than Windows 98. Unfortunately BeOS doesn't have a large library of software. Only other OS I've got to run decently on the old machine is Damn Small Linux, but that was far from speedy.

Re:Features? (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108760)

This seems to be my reply-don't-mod day....

If an enterprise already has a Windows environment, why would they be interested in upsetting everything and installing new Linux workstations? I'm not saying Linux can't perform, but keep in mind that if things are running smooth already, the least of their costs are going to be Windows client licenses.

If we grant your assumption that things are indeed running smoothly, then there's no reason to change. But in my experience with Windows, I've yet to see a place where things run smoothly without a remarkable loss in terms of the capabilities of the individual client. Sometimes (indeed, often) this is exactly what management wants, so more power to them.

By far the more common scene, though, is one where nobody stops to calculate the opportunity cost of running Windows. Time and money spent keeping workstations malware-free could be spent improving and automating processes, making the entire organisation more effective. Just a couple of weeks ago I encountered a textbook example of this, where I was pulled away from writing a remote monitoring and administration interface for some web-based services because some user received a wonderful surprise in the form of a trojan-infested Powerpoint file with a 'Jesus loves you' message. (Aside: I've had a really hard time explaining to people that yes, Jesus may love you, but in this particular case, he's more interested in pwning your computer.)

Installing a low/no-cost alternative to Windows that integrates well with existing infrastructure but is vastly easier to manage and is inherently more secure is, well, to my mind it's a gimme. I think Linux is beginning to offer some really compelling alternatives that meet or exceed all of Windows' capabilities. I've played with Xandros before (it's based in my home town, so I've met a few of the devs as well), and though it's not to my taste, it is a well-built distro that attempts to leverage security and robustness without forgetting real-world needs of business users.

More power to them, I say.

IT managers would be wise to evaluate this kind of software. If nothing else, it gives them a better context in which to make their decisions. The more you know about what the different platforms can do, the better positioned you are to do what your business wants to do.

Re:Features? (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108802)

>If an enterprise already has a Windows environment, why would they be interested in upsetting
>everything and installing new Linux workstations?

Let's say they've done some math and come to the conclusion it's cheaper to keep a few servers,
and replace all the desktops to avoid the yearly tithe to the Church of Bill. Then it makes some sense.

Re:Features? (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110088)

If an enterprise already has a Windows environment, why would they be interested in upsetting everything and installing new Linux workstations?

Say you are fed up with 2000/XP security issues, and you want something better. You have heard that both Vista and Linux are more secure. Then a 2-year-old existing PC upgraded to Xandros Professional is $99; buying a new PC that can run Vista will cost an order of magnitude more.

Alternatively, for an older PC nearing the end of its life, buying a new one that can run Xandros should cost about half of what a PC that can run Vista will (seeing as you need half the RAM, have no need for a powerful graphics card - I assume you do want to run Aero Glass, and the actual software is also cheaper, etc.).

If Xandros can indeed be dropped into a Windows network and 'just work', with minor upgrade hassles, then that should be a compelling argument for corporations to consider it. Having never tried Xandros, I have no idea whether this is true. However, if I were running a corporation, I would download the 30-day free evaluation version and give it a spin.

Get over it, you're not going to "win" this decade (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108728)

Dear Slashdot Linux users,

Get over it. Linux on the desktop is not mature, and for many businesses is not ready. It probably won't be really "competitive" for another 5-6 years, easily. The sooner you accept it, get coding and stop pretending like the battle is close, the sooner the battle actually will.

There's a good reason that Microsoft can charge hundreds of dollars for their product while Linux struggles to give it away. Think about it. If Windows were free, no one but hobbyists would even consider Linux/BSD/Plan9/BeOS/whatever.

  - AC

Re:Get over it, you're not going to "win" this dec (1, Flamebait)

waferhead (557795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108822)

I'll bite.

Actually, most folks who run Linix/*BSD/whatever don't do it due to Windows costing money.

Having an OS that doesn't suck is priceless.

Using Windows drives me nuts.

Re:Get over it, you're not going to "win" this dec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108866)

Are you a hobbyist? Yes you are. How cute! *pinches cheeks* You managed to miss the point entirely.

*nix wouldn't be half as good as it is today without massive corps like IBM funding development, and they do it for business reasons. If Windows were free, companies wouldn't give two shits about free software, and Linux would be hosed and unusable.

Even today businesses fund a lot of Linux development.

Get over it. It'll be some time before Linux has the ability to compete on the same playing field. Linux is to Windows as college football is to NFL. Maybe someday those players will push up to the pro leagues, but in the meantime a pro team will clobber them.

5-6 years, minimum.

Re:Get over it, you're not going to "win" this dec (1)

waferhead (557795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109126)

"...If Windows was OPEN and FREE, companies wouldn't give two shits about free software, and Linux would be hosed and unusable."

There, I fixed that for you.

You almost made some good points, AC.

Windows is still a cesspool I choose not to swim in whenever possible.

Re:Get over it, you're not going to "win" this dec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17109172)

Very few companies really care if they can modify the software themselves, especially if it works. You're confusing businesses for hobbyists again.

Small businesses already rarely use Linux, and larger ones would (and do!) take out contracts with Microsoft to get things fixed ASAP.

Re:Get over it, you're not going to "win" this dec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17109462)

Perhaps, and I don't argue with your timeframe (I can't even imagine how much Linux will have improved by then) but MS doesn't always fix things ASAP even with those contracts. Believe me, I know. Then again, neither does Redhat. Given the choice with using either Windows or Linux though, we'd rather go with Linux. It's not necessarily the source or freedom, although they're nice, nor necessarily the price, although that's also a bonus. It's the open standards that it's based upon, versus whatever modified and encumbered standard of the release that MS comes up with. Because of those standards, we can bring software developed on Linux to other platforms with much less effort. That's useful when you need to move your code to a larger server running Solaris or AIX.

Re:Get over it, you're not going to "win" this dec (1)

waferhead (557795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110720)

"Very few companies really care if they can modify the software themselves, especially if it works. You're confusing businesses for hobbyists again."

You're confusing "works" again.
I don't think it means what you think it means.

Converting all those nasty Unix boxes to Windows back in the day took many an IT department from a part time job for one engineer to a full time job for 20 monkeys. Been there. Done that.

MOST "software" is written in house, for in house use.
People seem to forget that.

With Windows, you get to play roulette with the OS, and you have precious little control.
(how is THIS update going to hose our system..???)

This has been interesting.
Thanks for playing, Mr. Ballmer.

Great Yippy Waaaahoooo (1, Interesting)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108776)

Thats just wonderful. Im very happy for all you Linux fans. Will I be able to Watch the same movies and video clips I do now? What about my E-Book Collection? Will I be able to use the programs I use now for backing up my DVD Collection ? ( AnyDVD and CloneDVD ) Will I Be able to play the games I own right now ? ( Battlefield series Ect......Not that I did'nt reallllly enjoy Tux Racer) What about my hardware , will I have to "Roll my own" drivers for my computer ? Will it do all of this out of the Box (or the download) How much will I have to Relearn about computers (sorry I have very little free time to put away for learning a lot of new crap to do the same stuff I do now.) I do not mind spending a little time on learning a new operating system. I do mind spending a lot of time on Kernels and drivers and all of this other crap. When I can install this ( on the same computer as my XP just in case ) And it gives me the same uses as XP does without a trip thru Geekfest 4000 then i'll do something besides yawn) and to all those who put people down for using windows or what not because its not as LEET as Linux remember two things 1.Windows is the number one used operating system in the world for a reason. 2. I got your LEET hanging right here.

Re:Great Yippy Waaaahoooo (1)

ender- (42944) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108912)

...Will I be able to Watch the same movies and video clips I do now? What about my E-Book Collection? Will I be able to use the programs I use now for backing up my DVD Collection ? ( AnyDVD and CloneDVD ) Will I Be able to play the games I own right now ? ( Battlefield series Ect......Not that I did'nt reallllly enjoy Tux Racer) What about my hardware , will I have to "Roll my own" drivers for my computer ? Will it do all of this out of the Box (or the download) How much will I have to Relearn about computers (sorry I have very little free time to put away for learning a lot of new crap to do the same stuff I do now.) I do not mind spending a little time on learning a new operating system. I do mind spending a lot of time on Kernels and drivers and all of this other crap. When I can install this ( on the same computer as my XP just in case ) And it gives me the same uses as XP does without a trip thru Geekfest 4000 then i'll do something besides yawn)...

NEWSFLASH! This distro is NOT for you. It's not developed for you, it's not designed for you, it's not intended for you. You want to game? Use Windows [for now], or buy a console.

This is intended for business desktops. Nobody should be playing Battlefield on it. Nobody should be messing around with kernels and drivers on it. An IT team will install it on supported hardware, and set it up for you. You just need to use it to ring up that order of fries.

Re:Great Yippy Waaaahoooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17109154)

NEWSFLASH! This distro is NOT for you. It's not developed for you, it's not designed for you, it's not intended for you. You want to game? Use Windows [for now], or buy a console.

This is intended for business desktops. Nobody should be playing Battlefield on it. Nobody should be messing around with kernels and drivers on it. An IT team will install it on supported hardware, and set it up for you. You just need to use it to ring up that order of fries.

Then why is it being Touted as "a possible challenger to Windows Vista". It would only be a challenger to Windows Vista if it was going to be used by the same userbase.
You said THIS distro is not for me. OK ill bite. Which Linux distro would fit my needs as listed above ? Are there any like that ?
Also I dont ring up Fries. I run 4 group homes for mental patients with dozens of clients and a dozen or so employees.Is this yet another example of Linux Leetness . You dont Understand Linux You must work at some Burger Joint.

Re:Great Yippy Waaaahoooo (2, Insightful)

ender- (42944) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109278)

Then why is it being Touted as "a possible challenger to Windows Vista". It would only be a challenger to Windows Vista if it was going to be used by the same userbase.

Well if you had actually read the summary and the article you would understand that the product is called "Xandros Desktop Professional, and that based on the features listed and discussed, is most likely being touted as a possible challenger to Vista Business Edition. Maybe Techworld didn't spell it out for you, but I assumed that features such as "Thin clients and terminal emulation", "Seamless Microsoft Exchange connectivity", or "Ready for mass deployment in enterprise settings via xDMS, Xandros Deployment and Management Server" would have clued you in on that fact.

You said THIS distro is not for me. OK ill bite. Which Linux distro would fit my needs as listed above ? Are there any like that ?

No, I'm not aware of any distro that caters to people who whine that a distro targeted at enterprise customers doesn't support games written for a completely different operating system. Don't complain that Linux doesn't support every piece of software written for Windows. It's hardly the fault of Linux, and quite frankly amazing that it can be made to run any software written for Windows. If you want to complain that Linux can't run your games, start bitching at the game developers. It is their choice to write games for Windows. Other developers are capable of writing cross-platform games, such as Doom 3, Quake 4, UT2004, Neverwinter Nights etc.

Trust me, I'd be very happy if all the best games ran in Linux, whether it be because the developer's wrote it that way, or because the smart folks who hack on Linux figured out a way to make them all work. But it just isn't there yet, so if you want to play games and use specific software written for Windows, just use Windows.

Also I dont ring up Fries. I run 4 group homes for mental patients with dozens of clients and a dozen or so employees.Is this yet another example of Linux Leetness . You dont Understand Linux You must work at some Burger Joint.

You are capable of running 4 group homes and dealing with a dozen employees, yet you come into this forum and post like a 16year old who just got off the night-shift at Wendy's [No offense to those few intelligent 16yr olds working at burger joints :)]. It has nothing to do with whether or not you 'understand Linux'. It's about your attitude of 'Waaah, this distro doesn't fit my needs perfectly so I'm going to complain'.

 

Re:Great Yippy Waaaahoooo (1)

mclaincausey (777353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109366)

That Burger joint employment theory is crtainly supported by your inability to render quotes effectively on /.

I wish there was an altenative to Windows (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108836)

we windows users know our OS sucks
therefore we escape the in your face homosexual trendoid cultism of Macs
and the futility of running a "free" OS like linux that takes hours of typing cyrillic to watch
dvds without sound

A few years ago.. (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108898)

I tried Xandros. Dont remeber the verion but was so taken back by the slick and quick install that I was ready to ditch Win2k/XP for Xandros. It worked great with my hardware and looked good.

It came installed with Mozilla and not Firefox. This is where the road back to Win2K/Xp stared. Looking thorugh their software repository I searched for Firefox and it wasn't there. So I check the forums. I found a post about installing Firefox. Well it was about 7 pages at that time. Reading through the first two showed me that no way in hell was I going to go through all the admin mumbo jumbo just to install Firefox. I was too lazy from trying out several destop distros that day.

Anyways I went back to windows cause it just works. Now before I get flamed by the "You're just too stupid to run Linux" fanboyz, know that I've ran/run and setup Slackware 10.1 and FreeBSD 6 web servers at home with no problems so my techincal abilities/curiosities are above the average computer user but what had to be done to install Firefox on XandrOS was just retarded and this is what keeps a steady supply of new users away from Linux. Most joe/jane average computer user has no problems finding/installing and configuring software preferances but thats if its provided for them through an installer.

Re:A few years ago.. (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109072)

Why wouldn't you just install Firefox on Xandros the same way you'd install it on Windows? Sure, there's an "unzipping" step, but if you went through all the effort to install an OS you can handle double clicking on a tarball and hitting the "extract to..." button.

Re:A few years ago.. (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109338)

Not to speak for Napna, but I prefer to install everything from repositories if possible - I find it keeps my system running smoothly and keeps from breaking dependencies.

Re:A few years ago.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17109362)

You can wear out your finger doing that. Better to use the right-click menu's "extract here" option to get your installation done in two clicks.

The whole problem with Windows users using Linux is that they make things incredibly difficult, I guess because they expect it to be difficult or because learning how to do things from web searches turns up needlessly complicated methods which people with special needs use. He was probably looking at instructions for compiling the latest CVS from source or someting like that.

Re:A few years ago.. (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109692)

Well seems from the forum post it just wasnt easy to do or at least the way the "how to" read, it make it seem way to complicated to bother with.

Re:A few years ago.. (1)

Blain (264390) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110568)

I'm running Xandros OCE, and have been for about a year now. It was a nice install, and I like some stuff about the file manager. The packages they had to offer weren't what I wanted, so I added some regular debian repositories and, after breaking the Xandros desktop manager and switching to KDE, it's run fine. Updates via the Xandros system have been a little odd, but I'm running FF 1.5 and found the upgrade from 1.0x to be as pain-reduced as any FF upgrade I've done in terms of extension compatibility (but, then, I use MR Tech Local Install to insist that extension compatibility isn't an issue).

I like it because, for most of what I want to do, it just works -- I have easier support of thumb drives and my mp3 player than I do under windows (ME, the last windows license I will buy), upgrades are easier (if slower) and the File Manager automates creating symlinks, which I love about it.

I'm considering moving over to Kubuntu just to get some fresher software (had been planning to go Debian/Etch, and might yet, but Kubuntu is getting the buzz).

mod 0p (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17108902)

we get therre wi7h

Use versus deployment vs management (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17108970)

Windows users, if they're like my family, have no problems because I do all the heavy lifting. At most, they have to reboot the machine after a few hundred hours uptime to get a given application running again. They use Office, Limewire, AIM, Winamp, iTunes, etc. If desktop Linux can provide that level of use to ordinary users, fine.

Now in terms of deployment, Windows sucks. Everything has to be hand managed. The patches required to deal with the security problems, spyware, adware is huge problem. And managing all of this to get things running and keep them, is a chore. So again if Linux can fix this or eliminate them then great.

But ordinary users don't want to do the Linux way of installing and futzing with things that sort-of work.

Re:Use versus deployment vs management (2, Interesting)

dknj (441802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109674)

required to deal with the security problems, spyware, adware is huge problem

fast forward 10 years into the apolyptic future. linux is the desktop king. you don't think spyware, adware, et al is going to exist? i mean by that notion, microsoft had it pretty damn easy in the windows 3.1 and early 95 days, remember? if linux can solve the problem, explain why a bunch of heavily paid microsoft researchers cannot do the same thing.

Challenger to Vista? Yeah Right (2, Informative)

xxdesmus (932581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109224)

The only distro of linux that is even vaguely close enough to mature to be a valid challenger to Vista might be Ubuntu, and that is still pushing it.

Corel and Xandros and Microsoft (1)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109668)

IIRC, Xandros is what became of Corel Linux.

As well, IIRC, Corel sold their distro to Xandros about a year after Microsoft pumped $135 million of much needed cash into Corel in a "joint development and marketing alliance [forbes.com]" to get Corel to port their various Windows apps to the .Net architecture.

Prior to this, Corel had been poised to port WordPerfect to Linux (natively - I believe there was already a WINE-based port) and were working on all sorts of initiatives to help make desktop Linux competitive with Windows. Then they got this investment, they talked about staying the course with Linux, but it languished, announced projects languished, and then they sold it.

- Greg

Re:Corel and Xandros and Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17109844)

Uuh yeah, long ago... I remember actually installing WordPerfect for Linux on Corel Linux 1.0. Maybe it was a beta and it most definitely came from a magazine cd but it was there. I signed up for the newsletter having gotten really interested in this thing called Linux, it stopped after about 6 issues without any explanation.
Went on to install RedHat and something called Storm or Stormix that didn't work very well and quickly disappeared as well, and then Mandrake which was alright for a while. Great thing this diversity, if one distro dies it does not stop the train.

Re:Corel and Xandros and Microsoft (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 7 years ago | (#17110428)

Actually WordPerfect 8 was a native port. WordPerfect 9 (10?) was a step backwards and used wine.
I have the full tarball running fine on Debian (needs libc5 and xlib5). Sure a pleasure to use compared to most newer word processors, at least on my old hardware. For the hell of it I tried installing the deb on Ubuntu but it wanted to backlevel and remove a lot of stuff.
Corel Linux was a nice distro.

I want ONE computer, already... (2, Insightful)

javabandit (464204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17109822)

Here is a quote from a prior post:

NEWSFLASH! This distro is NOT for you. It's not developed for you, it's not designed for you, it's not intended for you. You want to game? Use Windows [for now], or buy a console.

Can we get past the idea that we have to have two completely separate computers... one for gaming and one for business? This is 2006. I think we can have one machine that does both.

XP Professional does both. Hell, even Macintosh does both to some level.

Telling people that they should dual boot is not going to get new users any time soon.

Re:I want ONE computer, already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17110116)

The Playstation 3 also does both. It's free from pesky Microsoft stuff, too..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...