Why Wait for Eiger When Linux Is Ready Today?

[IGBT]

Text

Eiger, an anorexic version of Windows XP Pro, is meant for PC users whose machines are still running Windows 98, ME, NT Workstation or 2000. Microsoft has already stopped mainstream support for the first three, and W2K's day of no-support reckoning comes on June 30.

For those of you without a scorecard, Microsoft swore up and down that it wouldn't bring a cut-rate XP Starter Edition to the U.S. market.

XP Starter Edition was meant to slow down Linux acceptance in countries like Thailand and Brazil, where the Linux desktop was really getting traction. Can there be any doubt that at least part of the reason why Eiger has appeared out of nowhere is that Microsoft fears the same thing could happen here?


..Microsoft really needed to issue a new, low-end Windows. They may not be calling it that, but that's what Eiger really is.



At the same time, though, Longhorn's delay is the Linux desktop's chance.

Today, there is no Eiger, no Longhorn, but there are low-end Linux operating systems that can do anything a Windows desktop can do for less upfront cost and with far better security.

If you're getting sick of endless Windows viruses and critical patches, try one of these Linux desktops. I've used them all, and any of them makes a fine Windows desktop replacement.


Finally, SimplyMEPIS will run on almost any hardware. I run it myself on a white box with only 128MBs of RAM and a Via 700MHz Cyrix III processor. You don't even want to know what happened when I tried putting XP Home on that box...

 

[Nomada]

Never heard of Eiger but I for one would benefit from a stripped down XP. Just don't get rid of Pinball.

 

[IGBT]

..I've got a few old boxes that are running xpsp2 pro..their Athlon 950's slot processors. They would prob.be better of wit a skinny xp..but I know many that still run w98se and a few that still run w95. So there is a market for a skinny xp.

 

[nweaver]

skinny linux > skinny XP

 

[Malak]

Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

 

[IGBT]

..yeah..I wana give Mandrake a try wit the KDE desktop..just waiting for a more mature version with better PnP and drivers.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

Somebody! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade^W^W^W2x4 of Enlightenment!

[thwack!]

Considering the intrinsic qualities of each environment, there's nothing one can't do that the other can. The only things you can claim are drivers and games; the games are a matter of economics and will come as an effect of acceptance, but the drivers problem is pure asshattery on the part of the chipset companies, who mostly keep their documentation so far up their rectums, our only recourse is reverse engineering, and that takes time which could otherwise be used to improve performance or add non-vital features.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

Somebody! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade^W^W^W2x4 of Enlightenment!

[thwack!]

Considering the intrinsic qualities of each environment, there's nothing one can't do that the other can. The only things you can claim are drivers and games; the games are a matter of economics and will come as an effect of acceptance, but the drivers problem is pure asshattery on the part of the chipset companies, who mostly keep their documentation so far up their rectums, our only recourse is reverse engineering, and that takes time which could otherwise be used to improve performance or add non-vital features.

It's becoming less and less of a problem. The hardware you should be getting is already supported. Stuff that doesn't work is typically crap or specialty stuff.

Open sourced hardware accelerated 3d would be nice, but whatever.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

 

[bob4432]

roll your own lite version of xp and add sp2 at the same time - NLiteOS

 

[nweaver]

What does windows do that Linux can't? Oh yeah, it can't keep the A.D.D Noobs happy

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

*shrug*

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom.

That is they encourage people to share code, to give software away. For instance if I wanted to I could give away Debian on bittorrent (which it is), and I could install it on my sister's computer AND mine at the same time. Can't do that with Windows XP. I would be sued if I tried to give Windows XP away for free to too many people and if I tried to give away the code to Windows XP it would probably be a federal offense.. literally.

Aside from that, then I suppose Windows XP is fine.

 

[nweaver]

Linux doesn't hold your hand while you pee

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: nweaver
Linux doesn't hold your hand while you pee

Well neither does Windows XP!

That's kinda scary thought.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

*shrug*

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom.

That is they encourage people to share code, to give software away. For instance if I wanted to I could give away Debian on bittorrent (which it is), and I could install it on my sister's computer AND mine at the same time. Can't do that with Windows XP. I would be sued if I tried to give Windows XP away for free to too many people and if I tried to give away the code to Windows XP it would probably be a federal offense.. literally.

Aside from that, then I suppose Windows XP is fine.

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom

hmm so they keep telling me admittedly I have only been trying it for a couple of weeks and the initial shock is starting to wear off a little. and some of the file structure is starting to make sense and thanks to people like noc and weaver have made a little sense out of it. Learning a few commands some are similar to dos.

less expensive?? most would have to buy some new hardware because of things like winmodems and winprinters.

fedora takes about 10 minutes to boot on my system I am thinking about disabling or shutting off a lot of the services to try and speed that up have been reading about which ones I could turn off. Installing packages so far seems to range from easy to impossible depending on the package...I dunno but have started to get the feeling maybe its a little over secure?? which can make things harder to do?

Most people are going to be scared off by an os thats main interface is a cli until linux gets a gui that allows people an easier slide into making it work for them its desktop use is limited.
I understand distros like linspire and lindows attempt to do this but I haven't tried those.

I can get from point A to point B on the bus or in my car.
the bus is free but it takes me a lot longer to get there.
therefore in my mind at this point the expense of buying a car makes more sense because I go out the door jump in the car and in 10 minutes I am at my destination.

If I take the bus I may have to wait a half hour to catch it, go to 10 stops I didn't want to visit, and get dropped off 6 blocks from where I am trying to go.


So far all linux has made me do is appreciate windows more> Will that change over the next year as I play with linux???> maybe, I am trying to reserve judgement until I give it a fair shake as I realize part of the problem is me because I need a better understanding of the OS, which is not going to happen overnight.

 

[nweaver]

Daniel, nice post. As you may know...my pet peeve is people who use linux for 2 hours and then come whine about how much it sucks.

And the bus/car analogy is ok, but for some of us, Linux is the car, and windows is the bus. It mostly depends on the task you are doing, and your knowledge. What if the goal is to get the entire marching band to point b, is the car or the bus faster now?

Windows and linux are tools te learn/use to make my life easier. I will use both, which ever is easier/faster/meets my needs.


And a 10 minute boot time is a tad slow. My M700 laptop (500 Mhz P3 w/192 MB ram) takes less then 2 minutes to boot, but then I always default to runlevel 3. It' probably 3 more minutes (or more) to get into my desktop in Gnome. Time for you to start digging around and getting your hands dirty mucking around the guts of your OS.


Oh, and windows does hold you hand while you pee, you just havn't noticed yet. Some linux distro's do too, but you can remove that, but not on windows


I moved 62 days ago, and I have 58 days uptime on my Linux based firewall/webserver. I have used windows servers, and some will stay up that long, but often services slow down, esp around the 45/60/80 day marks. (I had 160 days uptime on an exchange server...it was worthless though).

 

[Kroeger]

I have really tried to change over to Linux on many occasions over the last three years, but the killer for me everytime is Fonts. I don't know if I am in a minority of One, but every time I install Linux, no matter which distribution the fonts look like ass compared to Windows XP.

 

[Malak]

Games are not developed for Linux, games are important to me. Therefore, Linux loses right off.

Windows does any other simple tasks I need to do perfectly fine. I would have to learn a whole new OS to do any of those tasks as efficiently as I do in Windows.

Windows is embraced by most of the market, make anything I do more compatible with the people I work with. That is not necessarily the case with Linux.

I am not saying Linux sucks, I'm saying it's worthless to me. Windows is perfect for everything I need it to do.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

Somebody! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade^W^W^W2x4 of Enlightenment!

[thwack!]

Considering the intrinsic qualities of each environment, there's nothing one can't do that the other can. The only things you can claim are drivers and games; the games are a matter of economics and will come as an effect of acceptance, but the drivers problem is pure asshattery on the part of the chipset companies, who mostly keep their documentation so far up their rectums, our only recourse is reverse engineering, and that takes time which could otherwise be used to improve performance or add non-vital features.

It's becoming less and less of a problem. The hardware you should be getting is already supported. Stuff that doesn't work is typically crap or specialty stuff.

Open sourced hardware accelerated 3d would be nice, but whatever.

What can I say? It's the house specialty of rants. :laugh:

I suppose it is getting old. I'll try to bring that thought up to the conscious the next time I go a'ranting.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Kroeger
I have really tried to change over to Linux on many occasions over the last three years, but the killer for me everytime is Fonts. I don't know if I am in a minority of One, but every time I install Linux, no matter which distribution the fonts look like ass compared to Windows XP.

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Xorg_and_Fonts

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/index.html

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/FDU/index.html

http://jmason.org/howto/subpixel.html

On-screen display of fonts has always been a weakness.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

*shrug*

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom.

That is they encourage people to share code, to give software away. For instance if I wanted to I could give away Debian on bittorrent (which it is), and I could install it on my sister's computer AND mine at the same time. Can't do that with Windows XP. I would be sued if I tried to give Windows XP away for free to too many people and if I tried to give away the code to Windows XP it would probably be a federal offense.. literally.

Aside from that, then I suppose Windows XP is fine.

While I agree with many of your points, Linux still fails in quite a few areas.

1. ease of use, while improving, is still not at the same level of the commercial OSes
simply installing programs in linux is not as easy as an executable or a .dmg
2. wireless networking support is still pretty sad on the linux front, specifically in the range of supported hardware and in network roaming
this is a huge knock on those who would like to run linux on a laptop
3. office, office, office, office, office
this is undoubtedly one of the single most important applications, and openoffice frankly doesn't cut it
out of the box, native support for running office 2k3 would be a huge boost for linux

And while the multiple options in linux as far as desktop environment and distribution are good, they also harm as well. Many people want simple standardization, and they want to be able to go to another computer elsewhere and feel roughly the same as when they are on their own computer (as far as GUI). Unless linux starts to get a 'standardized' distro, this is going to be difficult. The push towards Ubuntu is looking up though.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Kroeger
I have really tried to change over to Linux on many occasions over the last three years, but the killer for me everytime is Fonts. I don't know if I am in a minority of One, but every time I install Linux, no matter which distribution the fonts look like ass compared to Windows XP.

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Xorg_and_Fonts

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/index.html

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/FDU/index.html

http://jmason.org/howto/subpixel.html

On-screen display of fonts has always been a weakness.

This demostrates one of the biggest problems with linux. Rather then fix the damn problem people write novels on how a user can fix the problem. As far as I'm concerned any how-to with 8 chapters better damn be about building a rocket or brain surgury. A proper how to should be:
Download this file.
Run file.
Click next
Click Finish.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

I completly agree.

 

[timswim78]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
Fat XP > skinny linux.

I'm sorry, but as long as Linux does nothing that XP can't do for me, and even can't do things XP can do for me, I won't use it.

:laugh:
duck quick incoming

*shrug*

Linux does a lot more then WinXP does, but most people wouldn't know it becuase they only ever use WinXP. Plus Linux is less expensive, more stable, more secure, and respects my Freedom.

That is they encourage people to share code, to give software away. For instance if I wanted to I could give away Debian on bittorrent (which it is), and I could install it on my sister's computer AND mine at the same time. Can't do that with Windows XP. I would be sued if I tried to give Windows XP away for free to too many people and if I tried to give away the code to Windows XP it would probably be a federal offense.. literally.

Aside from that, then I suppose Windows XP is fine.

While I agree with many of your points, Linux still fails in quite a few areas.

1. ease of use, while improving, is still not at the same level of the commercial OSes
simply installing programs in linux is not as easy as an executable or a .dmg
2. wireless networking support is still pretty sad on the linux front, specifically in the range of supported hardware and in network roaming
this is a huge knock on those who would like to run linux on a laptop
3. office, office, office, office, office
this is undoubtedly one of the single most important applications, and openoffice frankly doesn't cut it
out of the box, native support for running office 2k3 would be a huge boost for linux

And while the multiple options in linux as far as desktop environment and distribution are good, they also harm as well. Many people want simple standardization, and they want to be able to go to another computer elsewhere and feel roughly the same as when they are on their own computer (as far as GUI). Unless linux starts to get a 'standardized' distro, this is going to be difficult. The push towards Ubuntu is looking up though.

Guess what, Eiger won't run office or many other applications:
http://office.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000940043352/

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Kroeger
I have really tried to change over to Linux on many occasions over the last three years, but the killer for me everytime is Fonts. I don't know if I am in a minority of One, but every time I install Linux, no matter which distribution the fonts look like ass compared to Windows XP.

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Xorg_and_Fonts

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/index.html

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/FDU/index.html

http://jmason.org/howto/subpixel.html

On-screen display of fonts has always been a weakness.

This demostrates one of the biggest problems with linux. Rather then fix the damn problem people write novels on how a user can fix the problem. As far as I'm concerned any how-to with 8 chapters better damn be about building a rocket or brain surgury. A proper how to should be:
Download this file.
Run file.
Click next
Click Finish.

Indeed, that is the problem. The learning curve of Linux is a tad long, and understanding their file system usually requires:
a.- lots of reading
b- someone like n0ocmonkery to explian (if he can stand not calling you "fucktard", "retard", "stupid" or something before he is half way the explanation.)