<< open source code seems a little untrustworthy IMO. >>
Oh the joys of closed source programs like IIS.
Looks like someone forgot toaudit the code before putting it up for sale.
<<
<< open source code seems a little untrustworthy IMO. >>
Oh the joys of closed source programs like IIS.
Looks like someone forgot toaudit the code before putting it up for sale. >>
Don't forget our bug ridden and hacker friendly friends IE and OE and nice little bits of info that closed sourced OS keeps sending back to it mothership.
the reason it was slow/not working is because it had been slashdotted (denial-of-serviced when hit with the insane amount of traffic generated by slashdot readers)
why does this hurt linux.....I linux kernal with a windows interface can only be good for linux
I guess it doesn't necessarily hurt linux, but you're still dependent on Microsoft instead of find out what open source alternatives there are.
Don't confuse the windows interface with the actual os. KDE and Gnome are fairly refined now and offer the interface. On the flip side, the only part of the os which could at all be beneficial is directx, and you can see StuckMojo's post for how good that is.
I guess it doesn't necessarily hurt linux, but you're still dependent on Microsoft instead of find out what open source alternatives there are.
Don't confuse the windows interface with the actual os. KDE and Gnome are fairly refined now and offer the interface. On the flip side, the only part of the os which could at all be beneficial is directx, and you can see StuckMojo's post for how good that is.
I REALLY think this is a good idea. A lot of people are dependant on Windows (be it the interface or the available software) and can't go with straight Linux. This setup gives them the choice of providers. They can have Windows but don't have to support microsoft. It's just like the fact that most of us are running on IBM clones at the roots but not many of us actually have a computer made by IBM. This doesn't help Linux, but it does help in the fight against the monopoly.
<< I REALLY think this is a good idea. A lot of people are dependant on Windows (be it the interface or the available software) and can't go with straight Linux. This setup gives them the choice of providers. They can have Windows but don't have to support microsoft. It's just like the fact that most of us are running on IBM clones at the roots but not many of us actually have a computer made by IBM. This doesn't help Linux, but it does help in the fight against the monopoly. >>
how does it not help MS? you are still using alot of their apps, and instead of promoting an alternative, you are promoting a copycat which is just says "MS is the best so we have to copy them"
This doesn't help Linux, but it does help in the fight against the monopoly.
True true. BUT, using ms products on a non-ms os isn't helping to undermine the monopoly. Using non-ms products on a non-ms os does help the fight against the monopoly.
True true. BUT, using ms products on a non-ms os isn't helping to undermine the monopoly. Using non-ms products on a non-ms os does help the fight against the monopoly.
<< This doesn't help Linux, but it does help in the fight against the monopoly.
True true. BUT, using ms products on a non-ms os isn't helping to undermine the monopoly. Using non-ms products on a non-ms os does help the fight against the monopoly. >>
You're right - initially people would run their copy of Office XP directly on Lindows, and yet they will save the money. Open Source office programs would be largely neglected, *but still developed*.But now lets fast forward a year in the corporate timeline. Company X wants to buy 50 new computers and therefore needs 50 licenses for Office YQ. They're running Lindows. Bright spark A says 'Hey, we're running that Lindows thing now. I hear that Open Office 2003 is actually just as good as Office, and it's free, and it also supports our current Office XP files! Now that we've got Lindows it'll be a cinch to get it working!' Managers love the cost savings, and hence the business starts to migrate to Open Office. The fact that Linux apps are free of restrictive licenses will mean that people will start to migrate to them. Lindows, if it works, is an important stepping stone
<<
<< I REALLY think this is a good idea. A lot of people are dependant on Windows (be it the interface or the available software) and can't go with straight Linux. This setup gives them the choice of providers. They can have Windows but don't have to support microsoft. It's just like the fact that most of us are running on IBM clones at the roots but not many of us actually have a computer made by IBM. This doesn't help Linux, but it does help in the fight against the monopoly. >>
how does it not help MS? you are still using alot of their apps, and instead of promoting an alternative, you are promoting a copycat which is just says "MS is the best so we have to copy them" >>
They are allowing people and companies who for reasons of application dependencies might not switch a chance to switch platforms and still maintian the vitial applications they need. Later on down the road when they see that programs like OpenOffice, StarOffice, and Evolution as clearer and real choices that they can use without fear of having to make a big switch in terms of platform they will make the choice to switch and then save even more money by cutting off windows applications off all together. Kind of like a smoker who uses a patch to help him/her quit their smoking habit. Oneday they will end up not needing the patch but they can't start if they don't have something to gradually ween them off their adiction. Of course this is only going to work if Lindows works as promised ( i.e. better then WINE ) and provides a stable enough enviroment for companies to give it a shot.
It doesn't look like something I'd touch with a 10 foot pole.
1. Internet Explorer on Linux? I think I'm going to puke!!!
2. Hacked-up KDE with FVWM95. Been there, done that, didn't like it.
3. I'll bet they fused wine directly into the kernel so you don't have to type "wine" in a terminal. That means when a windows app crashes, there goes the whole damn kernel.
4. I'll bet it's really, really hard to upgrade your kernel without breaking everything.
I'll pass, thank you very much. I've been using Slackware for a month, and I have become addicted to using vi to fix problems. I'll bet Lindows doesn't even come with vi!
1. Internet Explorer on Linux? I think I'm going to puke!!!
2. Hacked-up KDE with FVWM95. Been there, done that, didn't like it.
3. I'll bet they fused wine directly into the kernel so you don't have to type "wine" in a terminal. That means when a windows app crashes, there goes the whole damn kernel.
4. I'll bet it's really, really hard to upgrade your kernel without breaking everything.
I'll pass, thank you very much. I've been using Slackware for a month, and I have become addicted to using vi to fix problems. I'll bet Lindows doesn't even come with vi!
<< ...open source code seems a little untrustworthy IMO. >>
Idiot.
<< I'll bet Lindows doesn't even come with vi! >>
I dont think there is a worth-while OS out there right now that doesnt come with a vi clone! Even Mac OS X comes with vi!
As far as lindows goes, whatever. I like my BSDs. Ill stick with them. If I ever find a Windows program that I *NEED* and wont run under WINE Ill take a look at this.
earthman
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 1999
- 1,653
- 0
- 71
Ha, sounds like all the "Linux" guys are pissed off because if this enjoys any success at all, it will mean less attention for their OS of choice, which is dead in the water anyway as a desktop. When I hear about how people should "learn the OS" it makes me wonder just how far out of touch with reality some people are. 95 percent of the computer using population has NO INTEREST in learning command lines, how to compile a kernel, or using a terminal to start a program, or editing LILO with vi. If you think Linux is so special that only 5 percent of the populace ever deserves to use it, FINE, but if that is that case, it will never be more than a marginal OS, and will never be commercially important, because it will never MAKE ANY MONEY, and the good games and software WILL NEVER BE PORTED, EVER. Look at what has happened to the stock prices of Red Hat and VA Systems if you don't believe that...you so-called Linux fans should be happy for ANY attention you get, its the ONLY thing that will help Linux grow into more than a 5 percent (who are we kidding, more like .5 percent, the rest is MacOS) margin. Don't complain about not being able to play your games on Linux or not having ports of programs you like...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN...why?...because it doesn't MAKE ANY MONEY for the people who have tried it...(Loki Games). Lindows, if it ever gets off the ground, and thats a BIG if, may offer the last real hope of competing with Microsoft with ANYTHING. Its obvious all the Linux distros have failed miserably, (and I've noticed that over the last year most of them have disappeared from store shelves as well) not to mention that they aren't any more stable than the latest versions of Windows. Now I hear that AOL may buy Red Hat...hah! If that isn't the boomerang coming full circle, I don't know what is...the company that dumbed the internet down to the lowest possible level buying the "smart" OS....heh.
You "computer enthusiasts" should really quit arguing about what version of Linux or BSD or AmigaOS or whatever is best, or whether kernel 2.2.13.011.0034.000067 is better than 2.2.13.011.0034.000065, and maybe give a little support to someone who is really trying to compete against a monopoly, while there is still a point in anybody trying to. Why the hell do you think Microsoft is suing? They really see this as a threat, unlike Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc., etc., etc., because they think people in THEIR user base, the one they care about, THE 95%, might actually buy THIS, and not THEIRS.
Wake up.
You "computer enthusiasts" should really quit arguing about what version of Linux or BSD or AmigaOS or whatever is best, or whether kernel 2.2.13.011.0034.000067 is better than 2.2.13.011.0034.000065, and maybe give a little support to someone who is really trying to compete against a monopoly, while there is still a point in anybody trying to. Why the hell do you think Microsoft is suing? They really see this as a threat, unlike Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc., etc., etc., because they think people in THEIR user base, the one they care about, THE 95%, might actually buy THIS, and not THEIRS.
Wake up.
Um, why would the Linux people be pissed if this succeeded? It's not going to take steam away from Linux as a desktop. Lindows IS a frickin Linux distro just like Red Hat, Mandrake, or any other, and if it was "dead in the water" then we wouldn't be getting these great advancements in Linux such that Lindows offers now would we?
Linux may be an alternative to windows, and with it their are native alternative apps. If you want to use windows apps, then use windows.
Hi Earthman and NorthernLove,
I aggree with you 100%. You seem to have the most realistic opinions in this thread. You've said things in the best possible way imagineable and there should be no fairther reason for stuborness from people in this thread.
Personaly, I am an outsider (never seen or operated a Linux machine) and therefore I am part of the population the Linux community is trying to intice.
Yes, I am frustrated with M$ Windows, not so much of the monopoly part, but because the software is just not exactly stellar.
Would I concider Linux? Well, right now, it is out of the question!
Having amassed a large multithousand dollar collection of software for my small business, switching to a totaly new platform and throwing away the entire software investment is just ain't gona happen. In other words I am *locked in*.
Unless there is a "transitional" solution where I can still use my existing software infrastructure so as to be able to upgrade gradualy to the new platform by adhering to the existing update schedule, the chances of migrating are slim if any.
And any such transitional solution would have to be Simple, Effective and absolutely Stable, surpassing any current offerings from the bloated M$ solutions.
Most importantly the last thing I want, is to be stifled with technical details of the system istead of doing meaningfull work. I honestly don't want to know jack about registries, and dlls or sys or any of these details. I ain't going to spent my time trying to figure out why the system is not up (and having to pay technicians every time to troubleshoot) .The user should be shealded from all technicalities. "You be the geek, I be the user" and thats that.
As far as the Linux-Wine combination is concearned, from what I hear it has an approximate 30% tax in performance. Well, unless you can give me something above 90% performance efficiency (compared to the equivalent Windows) then just forget about it.
And to be brutally honest with you. If the situation was so desperate that an OS change was imperative, then my next choice (as it currently stands) would be the Mac OS platform, not Linux.
Unless the Linux community starts putting your act together and think long term in a meaningfull way and stop shooting yourselves in the feet, Linux will not amount to anything worthwhile. It will be no more than a footnote, an OS for college kids to play a little bit and wow their friends.
On a side note I don't think Lindows will be enough to do the trick either (it won't fit the criteria), but seeing you guys putting it down before it even takes of the ground is realy sad.
I aggree with you 100%. You seem to have the most realistic opinions in this thread. You've said things in the best possible way imagineable and there should be no fairther reason for stuborness from people in this thread.
Personaly, I am an outsider (never seen or operated a Linux machine) and therefore I am part of the population the Linux community is trying to intice.
Yes, I am frustrated with M$ Windows, not so much of the monopoly part, but because the software is just not exactly stellar.
Would I concider Linux? Well, right now, it is out of the question!
Having amassed a large multithousand dollar collection of software for my small business, switching to a totaly new platform and throwing away the entire software investment is just ain't gona happen. In other words I am *locked in*.
Unless there is a "transitional" solution where I can still use my existing software infrastructure so as to be able to upgrade gradualy to the new platform by adhering to the existing update schedule, the chances of migrating are slim if any.
And any such transitional solution would have to be Simple, Effective and absolutely Stable, surpassing any current offerings from the bloated M$ solutions.
Most importantly the last thing I want, is to be stifled with technical details of the system istead of doing meaningfull work. I honestly don't want to know jack about registries, and dlls or sys or any of these details. I ain't going to spent my time trying to figure out why the system is not up (and having to pay technicians every time to troubleshoot) .The user should be shealded from all technicalities. "You be the geek, I be the user" and thats that.
As far as the Linux-Wine combination is concearned, from what I hear it has an approximate 30% tax in performance. Well, unless you can give me something above 90% performance efficiency (compared to the equivalent Windows) then just forget about it.
And to be brutally honest with you. If the situation was so desperate that an OS change was imperative, then my next choice (as it currently stands) would be the Mac OS platform, not Linux.
Unless the Linux community starts putting your act together and think long term in a meaningfull way and stop shooting yourselves in the feet, Linux will not amount to anything worthwhile. It will be no more than a footnote, an OS for college kids to play a little bit and wow their friends.
On a side note I don't think Lindows will be enough to do the trick either (it won't fit the criteria), but seeing you guys putting it down before it even takes of the ground is realy sad.
<< Unless the Linux community starts putting your act together and think long term in a meaningfull way and stop shooting yourselves in the feet, Linux will not amount to anything worthwhile. It will be no more than a footnote, an OS for college kids to play a little bit and wow their friends. >>
while you do have a point, i think its a little misguided. no one is shooting themselves in the foot. for the most part, the ones who want linux to get huge are redhat and mandrake and all the other companies trying to profit off of linux (dont take that wrong- i dont have a prob w/ people trying to make money), but the people who make linux what it is are the poeple who are willing to get their hands dirty with it. i doubt those people really want linux to get huge. either way they will still use it and it will continue to be developed, regardless of commercial appeal.
so i dont really think anyone is shooting themselves in the foot, and if anyone is, it's users who complain about linux problems but dont want to learn it and refuse to contribute at all, cus thats what linux is all about. thats why its called the linux community.
linux is a geek's OS and will be for some time, at least i think so. people like mandrake and suse and redhat can dress it up, but there are certain things that they cant help you with.
>>linux is a geek's OS and will be for some time, at least i think so. people like mandrake and suse and redhat >>can dress it up, but there are certain things that they cant help you with.
Well, if this statement represents the opinion of the of most Linux people, then (I am sorry to say) I have been looking to wrong place and I was totaly wrong to even consider it in the first place.
As a frustrated consumer (looking for alternatives) it is being suggested to me that Linux IS NOT (and never aspires to be) my answer..
Well then.....it is simple... you can keep it.....
Well, if this statement represents the opinion of the of most Linux people, then (I am sorry to say) I have been looking to wrong place and I was totaly wrong to even consider it in the first place.
As a frustrated consumer (looking for alternatives) it is being suggested to me that Linux IS NOT (and never aspires to be) my answer..
Well then.....it is simple... you can keep it.....
<< >>linux is a geek's OS and will be for some time, at least i think so. people like mandrake and suse and redhat >>can dress it up, but there are certain things that they cant help you with.
Well, if this statement represents the opinion of the of most Linux people, then (I am sorry to say) I have been looking to wrong place and I was totaly wrong to even consider it in the first place. >>
sorry to say that as far as where linux stands right now, you might be looking in the wrong place, sure redhat/mandrake/suse can detect your hardware and set it up for you, but what if they dont? what if you have some exotic hardware that they cant deal with?
if you want to get that hardware working, you're gonna have to get your hands dirty. you might have to compile a new kernel (you should do this anyways, but...), you'll have to dig around in text files and search on the net and/or irc to get help. its not always easy.
if you really want a painless linux experience, first off, get mandrake or suse or redhat. make damn sure that all of your hardware is supported well. and also use a journaling file system (ext3, reiserfs or XFS, reiser seems to be the favorite although i use ext3 cus i am too lazy to reformat).
so either way, you're gonna have to do some homework. but hey, if you want your OS to be simple, then why not go apple/OSX? OSX is a really great OS (a clear winner as far as commercial OS's go). awesome interface, BSD rock-solidness, and if you want to play around, you can get some typical linux apps running on it, and OSX support (hardware, apps, etc) can only get better.
plus it's not hard to learn like other unixes. (err...unices)
earthman
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 1999
- 1,653
- 0
- 71
The fact is that Linux lags far behind in all kinds of hardware support, and always will. I have no hardware newer than a year old, and I still can't get everything to work with any current Linux distro. That, and the fact that things like 3d support are rudimentary or nonexistent, doesn't make for a compelling argument to switch, no matter how "superior" an OS it supposedly is...and then there's the fact that you simply can't run your current software. If you really think that your Windows software is bloated and doesn't function well, then Linux would not satisfy you, since the software offerings leave much to be desired. Sure, they are free, by and large, but companies don't make any money on free stuff, so there is no incentive to do any serious development. The really good Linux software is the stuff ou have to pay for, just like for Windows.
Linux in the minds of many, if not most, of it's affficianados it seems, is mainly about them knowing more about it than you do...at least that seems to be the prevalent attitude. Its kind of like an exclusive club that doesn't really want you to join, even though they never stop telling you how great it is. Of course, when it can't do what you want it to, the attitude is that you don't really need to do that anyway. If thats what they want, fine, they can run an Atari 400 and load their programs from cassettes if they want, just don't tell me its better to do it that way. The fact is, Unix as an architecture is burdened with a ton of irrelevant components, legacy of a multi-user mainframe envirionment, and is just as outdated as the Windows architecture is, and they should both be replaced with something better.
Linux in the minds of many, if not most, of it's affficianados it seems, is mainly about them knowing more about it than you do...at least that seems to be the prevalent attitude. Its kind of like an exclusive club that doesn't really want you to join, even though they never stop telling you how great it is. Of course, when it can't do what you want it to, the attitude is that you don't really need to do that anyway. If thats what they want, fine, they can run an Atari 400 and load their programs from cassettes if they want, just don't tell me its better to do it that way. The fact is, Unix as an architecture is burdened with a ton of irrelevant components, legacy of a multi-user mainframe envirionment, and is just as outdated as the Windows architecture is, and they should both be replaced with something better.
The difference between Windows and Linux? (aside from OSS vs. closed source, of course)
Linux is at home just about everywhere: from the largest servers to PDA's and embedded applications. It can be customized nearly endlessly.
Windows, on the other hand, is a typical desktop OS. It's quite limited in functionality (which attributes to its user-friendliness) and not suitable for anything but desktop PC's. Servers? Without the ability to optimize the OS for performance and to disable things you don't need, like a GUI? Not being able to Telnet/SSH into the system and perform some maintenance beyond playing with some files?
PDA's? One would have to strip down Windows to the kernel to make it a bit more suitable, yet even then writing an OS from scratch is a better choice.
Embedded applications? Are you kidding?
Linux does fine as a desktop OS. It's just because of its complexity (due to the ability to customize everything) that people become lost.
Linux is at home just about everywhere: from the largest servers to PDA's and embedded applications. It can be customized nearly endlessly.
Windows, on the other hand, is a typical desktop OS. It's quite limited in functionality (which attributes to its user-friendliness) and not suitable for anything but desktop PC's. Servers? Without the ability to optimize the OS for performance and to disable things you don't need, like a GUI? Not being able to Telnet/SSH into the system and perform some maintenance beyond playing with some files?
PDA's? One would have to strip down Windows to the kernel to make it a bit more suitable, yet even then writing an OS from scratch is a better choice.
Embedded applications? Are you kidding?
Linux does fine as a desktop OS. It's just because of its complexity (due to the ability to customize everything) that people become lost.
I have a little question: whats all this fuss about? Why are you people acting so aggressivley towards an OS that might be THE solution for many people? For example, I would much rather stick with linux, but seing that Linux does not support any of the programs (or games) that I use everyday unless with WINE or VMWARE etc... This is it! One OS! Finally!
<< The fact is, Unix as an architecture is burdened with a ton of irrelevant components, legacy of a multi-user mainframe envirionment, and is just as outdated as the Windows architecture is, and they should both be replaced with something better. >>
Lindows still runs on that same Unix archetecture. It IS Linux. Hell if you look closely at the screenshot it's running a hacked up version of KDE. As I said earlier, this is a distro of Linux that happens to run Linux software. They may be using Wine, they may not be, but that doesn't make it non-Linux.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter