Lindows Reviewed 490
Well, the wait is finally over. Lindows, the system that promises to
bring Windows software to Linux, has finally been released in
sneak-preview form. You can catch a
first
hand review of the system on
NewsForge.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Lindows Reviewed
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
2 pints = 1 Cavort
Maybe improve DVD playback? (Score:3, Interesting)
I watch DVDs all the time and find it annoying that Linux doesn't have decent DVD playback. Hmmm maybe I should help write one...
Re:Maybe improve DVD playback? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe improve DVD playback? (Score:3, Funny)
Neither does Windows Media Player (coupled with a DVD decoder codec/hardware decoder).
Re:Maybe improve DVD playback? (Score:2, Informative)
software decoders sucks. my ancient creative DXR2 rocks under linux (altough the drive seems to be getting quirkier as time passes...). And it uses like 5% of my powerful k6-2 cpu while playing a movie... and has a tv-out, so no need to watch on the tiny 17-inch CRT. sweet.
Re:Anyone make mplayer for RH7.1 or beyond? (Score:2)
That'll get you rocking.
Neat Point (Score:3, Insightful)
"There's something scary about an imaginary LindowsOS-from-Windows convert, happily running as root, downloading emails with infected
I thought, now people will be complaining about stupid lindows users. But think about it, if everyone was as as smart as most linux users, their windows boxes wouldn't be as fucked up w/virii or whatever from outlook.
Here's my point. It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people.
Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Funny)
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people.
Call Linus, I think we have a new slogan.
Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a windows sysadmin by profession (its paying the bills today folks, save the zealous remarks) and we have very good uptime numbers here, but it's a full time job even for a small shop.
Basically, I think you're right on. Saying "well, linux is just inherantly a stabler system" is akin to saying, "you know, most of those old mechanics who build hot rods in their spare time have cars that run much better than the average driver." Yeah ... what did we expect?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:Neat Point (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, as a group, Linux users ARE smarter, because you have to statistically take into account all the dumbasses (see above); what you *cant* say is that there arent SMART windows users, which noone did say.
capice?
Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people."
How self contradictory can you get? It's *not* the OS. No matter how user friendly or unfriendly, it's the user. Period. End of line.
If it's user friendly, you get a pleasant, useful, powerful, computing experience. That's it.
A user friendly OS and program with a stupid person does not make the OS insecure or the program flawed, or the UI wrong. It just means the user is stupid.
User friendly does not imply a stupid user.
Re:Neat Point (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Interesting)
There's probably some truth to both sides of the issue. It's true that careless or incompetent administration can compromise the security and stability of even the best designed system. But it's also true that a well designed system requires less care and less competence to maintain as a reasonably secure and stable system.
Take dealing with services as an example. A well designed system has unnecessary services turned off (or even better, not installed) by default, so that any flaws in those services won't compromise the system. This means that a casual user, who won't be running them anyway, has one less thing to worry about and doesn't need to be as smart or careful to keep his system in good shape. Similarly, a system that allows users to spend most of their time in an unpriviledged mode is less likely to cause problems if/when those users eventually stumble onto trojans/viruses/worms. Adding in an extra, necessary step to make those malware programs really vicious makes it that much less likely that they'll cause problems.
Is good security something that you can buy off the shelf? Of course not. Security is a process, and administration is the key part of that process. But the quality of the product can make that process easier or harder.
so how do we fix this? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd create a linux distro designed to TEACH FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of computer use to the users... things like coherent file organization, user permissions, networking security... just some basic stuff, as well as how to actually use the linux distro that we (my company) would also spend a lot of time setting up to be more secure by default, and well-configured (read: easy to use, but not masking the actual functionality behind all the pretty widgets) so that not only could it be a quality operating system for experienced users, it would be a perfect stepping-stone for morons who are used to having they're brains spoonfed the babyfood that windows and macos feed them.
The result? A *significant* increase in the relevant education level of computer users exposed
to this operating system.
potential <subjective>positive</subjective> side-affects:
1)decrease in M$ desktop marketshare due to higher level of user-education (once you've used *our* OS you *know* why windows sucks... you've become enlightened enough to see past all they're FUD and marketing hype into the rotten core of the thing)
2)world peace. (oh yea... i'm on a roll now heheh) believe it or not, education is a good thing... teach people more about computers and get them more fascinated in the TECHNOLOGY aspect of the computing, rather than just the pretty colors and the ability to send instant messages to minors across the planet and you've actually awakened more of the thing this world needs the most: intelligent thinkers who make judgements based on integrity and quality and other high-minded concepts that joe-sixpack doesn't want to take the time to try to understand.
3)(ready for this) SECURITY... yes, the internet will become a SAFER PLACE. more people will understand WHY you don't run an exe that comes into your mailbox from a stranter (or often from a co-worker) and why email-hoaxes can't be real and
*soapbox rant*
bah. i don't know, i'm just fucking around with those last two, but seriously though, there are IMPORTANT intellectual concepts that affect not only computing, but LIFESTYLE, that the Linux community has a FAR better grasp of than the "windows community"... and truthfully the ONLY salvation we have from Microsoft taking over the whole world has it's source in simply finding a way to impart this knowlege unto everyone OUTSIDE the linux community that we can, and we're not going to be able to do that by scaring them with our super-intelligent operating system, and we're not going to be able to do that by trying to get the government on our side (we'll get crushed like a kid getting picked on in the schoolyard for telling on a bully) and we're sure as hell not going to do it by sitting on our collective asses and looking down our noses at those who "just don't get it"
the common populace CAN be taught, as long as you present it in an easy-to-consume bright shiny fun-looking semi-affordable package. once you've done that you can teach them anything you want, we just need to pick the right thing to teach them.
*getting off soapbox now*
thanks for your time
WTFM (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want users that are educated in the ways of any OS, you've got to WTFM. Write the ****** Manual.
Face it, unless you make it accessible to the just-outta-college temps and the middle-aged secretaries that I see in _my_ offices, you aren't going to gain desktops.
Man pages won't cut it. Giving them the source and telling 'em to figger it out won't cut it.
Lindows is doing at least one thing right: They're working on making the install procedure as painless as possible. When Linux installs as easy as Windows or Mac OS X, you'll be reducing a big barrier to adoption.
The real barrier coming up is finding ways to get otherwise intelligent people to understand the Unix world. I'm not going to recommend Linux to anyone non-geek co-worker until they don't have to learn crazyness like this:
I want to change the file permissions on this file so that noone can read, write or execute this file but me... Let see... 4 = read, 2 = write, 1 = execute. Therefore I have to chmod 0700
It's not sexy or cutting edge. It's also the weakest part of most projects I've seen.
Re:WTFM (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? They are the manual pages, hence the name. The original Unix manual was the man pages printed out; the man pages were the manual, online. The pages offer help and documentation for every part of the system.
This is, incidentally, why GNU's broken manpages are so intolerably evil. Info's great--it's far better than man. But it should never replace man. Man is usable in situations where info is not. Man has advantages info lacks.
I want to change the file permissions on this file so that noone[sic] can read, write or execute this file but me... Let[sic] see... 4 = read, 2 = write, 1 = execute. Therefore I have to chmod 0700[sic]
Alternatively, I want to make sure that none but I can read it. This means that no other user or group of users can do anything to it. I want to subtract all privileges from others and groups. Thus I want to chmod og-a. There, that wasn't too bad, was it?
Re:so how do we fix this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Kernel compiles you say? oh, well how many people do you know that can install whole new driver sets, or even do a full win2K/9X install? Some perhaps, and more than those that can do a Linux install, but again the problem is with learning it the first time. after the first install (on, again, mandrake 8.1) it's like you already know how to swim. Give people time...as Linux matures you might be surprised.
Re:Neat Point (Score:2)
Ok, in a humor context, good one :) But in a practical one, no.
A shitty OS that is not consistent and doesn't make sense, causes the user live in fear, fear to learn, fear that if they do something wrong they will break something. It's even worse when it causes massive damage all by itself (receiving an Outlook virus).
A good OS with consistent, secure behaviour gives the user confidence in what's going on and lets them understand it. They are not afraid to explore; why should exploring break anything? It should do what the user tells it to do, and the user should be able to understand what the user is telling the computer to do (instead of just having to accept the fact that pushing 3 toolbar buttons in the right order gets the task done).
Most people dipping their feet in the pool of Unix are not running as root (I was going to say anyone, but I'm sure there would be people here who would argue that point :). If you don't know anything about Unix, you can't cause much damage, other than deleting your files, by doing the act of deleting your files. I'm taking this from a my personal, non-GUI experience. My first dial-up ISP (pre http era) was command line only. Unix was fun; there was only one way to go, up (learn).
That's not the case for Windows. Even experienced users shoot themselves in the foot frequently.
My motto in life (Score:2)
This is why I always try to be as unfriendly to people as possible -- who wants stupid friends? Most people just accuse me of being anti-social. If only they knew!
Re:Neat Point (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people.
And that's exactly the holier-than-thou attitude of you computer geeks that keeps newbies away. I've been through the "glory days" of early 80's computing, and couldn't wait to toss the CLI on the dumpster as soon as I possibly couild. There's nothing particularly great about it.
Oh, and it's "viruses." So much for geeks being smart; most of you come off as one hit wonders that know a whole lot about computers, and not a lot about anything else.
Re:Neat Point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Neat Point (Score:2)
No nagging on the install! (Score:3, Funny)
Excellent. It sounds like Lindows has taken Linux a giant leap towards the ease-of-use that modern desktop users demand. This might actually be competitive in the marketplace!
Re:No nagging on the install! (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux users won't want it because they won't want to be root all the time. Windows users won't want it because Windows apps won't run as well.
Admiteddly, this is not a full release, but even so, what is the point of purchasing this? With Wine running, a tempermental app at best, you lose a lot of the stability of Linux. With X running as root, you lose the security of Linux, and gain all those nice outlook viruses. And if the primary target is current Windows users, well, I just cannot see a reason they would switch.
A dumbed down X with Wine just ain't gonna cut it in the market, I have to believe.
Re:No nagging on the install! (Score:2)
Yes, we do.
I think the great thing about Lindows is that it's really and exclusively targeted on the desktop and that they have great marketing.
For example a Windows user who hates Microsoft but also does not want to try Linux, said he would check out Lindows. - It's marketing.
If Lindows is successful, Linux will gain a lot of users and with them better support from hardware and software vendors. - I don't see why this could be a bad thing.
While I'm also not sure about their success, I whish they really make some inroads.
Re:No nagging on the install! (Score:2, Interesting)
So, lemme get this straight. You are saying that the reason Linux isn't competitive in the marketplace is because they have too much security? That typing in an additional password is a bad thing?
Even if the only reason you have a password is to avoid executing all of your binaries as root, so you might actually have a secure machine, even if you do open that Snow White and the Seven dwarfs e-mail?
Thats very insightful. Worthy of a mod point, if I had one... But wait a second.... Don't you have to enter a password for NT? And more importantly, if you want to change something in NT, you need an Administrator password (or at least an Administrator to give you permission)? And last time I checked, NT was "competitive in the market place".
Yes! Hmmm.... Very interesting.
Maybe that few seconds of nagging isn't so bad after all.
So, wait a second... (Score:4, Funny)
Right?
Re:So, wait a second... (Score:2)
No, I think this guy has a point... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the incentive for you to change?
Think about it. The biggest killer of Office sales is not StarOffice or KOffice, but older versions of Office. People want something that just "gosh-durn works". They don't care about upgrading, and they certainly aren't interested in the fact that the new Athlon 2GHz processor is faster than the equivalent Intel.
If you've ever done PC helpdesk, you know the inevitable deer-in-headlights look that regular computer users get when you say "the U word": upgrade. "Will my applications be okay? What about my documents? How about my email?" Change scares people! Even changing to Windows XP is scary because it doesn't look like other versions of Windows.
I can't even convince people to get rid of 9x and switch to Windows 2000, even though I can promise them stability and more configuration options. The panicked look comes onto their face, and then they say "You know, Windows 98 isn't that bad, and it runs this and this and this, and what if my documents get deleted?!" These people in no way are ready to switch to something that is not Windows, and the more someone makes a big deal out of it, the more scared they get.
I think the parent post has a valid point. If what you are using works, why change? Personally, I'm still on the crusade to rid the world of Windows 98 and switch people over to 2000/XP, but even that is a long and unforgiving ride. If Lindows doesn't even run the applications these people need, forget it. That battle isn't even worth fighting.
Re:No, I think this guy has a point... (Score:2)
Re:So, wait a second... (Score:2)
What does that leave us with? Software support. But if Lindows really has this many problems running windows apps, AND dumbs down Linux to whittle away many of its advantages... doesn't that really make Lindows a moot point?
Mind you, this is just a beta, as we've all been reminded, but if Lindows wants to succeed, it had better clean up its Windows support, and respect more power users' desire for configurability/flexability.
Re:So, wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just curious, not intending to troll, but will probably be regarded as such...
Which public is this? The open source loving slashdot reading MS bashing public? Or the remaining 99% of the computing world, most of which have no opinion on Windows positive or negative, it's just what their computers at work and home happened to come with (unless they're using Macs, of course)?
For the vast majority of computer users, the OS isn't the source of religious fervor Linux users seem to think it is. It's just what runs in the background while they look at web pages or read email or balance their checkbook.
They couldn't give a rat's ass what their computers run as long as they can double-click on the picture of a 1040 and fill out their tax forms.
Ask 100 random people on the street what operating system their computers run, and of the 95 that answer "Windows", probably 20 will be able to tell you which flavor of Windows it is (95/98/NT/ME/2K/XP). Ask those 20 how much RAM their computer has, and probably 10 will tell you it came with 40 gigs of RAM.
Honestly, folks, it's nice that you find so much meaning in hating Microsoft, but please don't assume that the rest of the world feels the same way.
The vast majority of people out there DON'T CARE.
Slashdot is NOT a cross-section of computer users.
-l
Re:So, wait a second... (Score:2)
The majority of people don't like their PC crashing randomly, or having to defrag their hard drive, or having to completely reinstall everything. A product that allows them to use all their software and the vast majority of their hardware without the unnecessary inconvenience of the above would no doubt be very popular.
Re:So, wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
>crashing randomly, or having to defrag their
>hard drive, or having to completely reinstall
>everything.
Then again, the majority of people don't understand that Windows has anything to do with that. They think it's just part of using a computer.
Quick, what's the most often-cited initial reaction Linux advocates get from new (usually neophyte) converts?
"My computer doesn't crash anymore!"
The reason that's the initial reaction is because it's the biggest shock - they really honestly EXPECT their computer to crash because it's all they've ever known. They don't blame Windows for it. They don't hate Microsoft for it. They blame their COMPUTER and they hate COMPUTERS for it.
If your fuel injectors on your car break, do you hate your car, the manufacturer of your car, or Bosch? Unless you're a mechanic or a car guy, you probably don't even know who the hell Bosch is.
-l
Re:The odds aren't even *that* good. (Score:2)
>what operating system their computers run,
>you'll be lucky if you get 95 of them that use
>computers, never mind have one.
Another good point... I guess I was looking at it from the point of view of someone in Austin, we're a very wired and tech-saturated town.
>Hell, most of them won't even buy counterfeit
>Levi's if they can avoid it. "It's not the real
>thing, it's not as good."
Heh, I just had this vision of Aunt Tillie commenting that Linux is just a "cheap knock-off of a proper namebrand OS".
-l
True Windows emulation... (Score:5, Funny)
"trying to run Windows programs in a user account will cause problems."
Wow, even emulating Windows' very own security model...
credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see -- you cannot really be anything other than root, it can be hit by a Window's virus, lots of apps just *poof*,... How will this give Lindows credibility with the Linux crowd?
r00ted! (Score:2)
The article first states that the installation is limited because it doesn't ask you to add users other than root.
Why should it? Being that Windows will let any user do anything... why shouldn't lindows? I know XP has an 'admin' account, but that doesn't do much. Why should this be more secure, it wouldn't be like windows enough for the people.
Seriously, the only thing that XP's admin vs. non-admin users is the ability to add more users and other lame protections. It is a step in the right direction but isn't enough.
Regular users on my system have been able to delete critical files and change some settings. The main thing I noticed is that Red Alert won't let you play as a regular user. Just won't play. I had to give my girl friend a admin account so that it would start up. Kinda defeats the purpose.
Re:r00ted! (Score:2, Insightful)
As the review says - this is a Preview release, which I'm sure Lindows people will read (and probably pissed off since someone broke NDA).
I'm sure that they will react and will change stuff - and if I'm not mistaken, they have stated to their Lindows testers that the file system is still under change and future previews WILL NOT be as this version which had been reviewed..
So first we didn't belive that Lindows exists and it's only a photoshop mock-up. Now it looks like it's real, but with a problem with users - lets wait another version AND THEN decide whether to use it or not.
When you MUST be root...? (Score:2)
Why should it? Being that Windows will let any user do anything... why shouldn't lindows?
My initial reaction was the same as yours.
But then, I thought... What if Lindows takes off like a runaway train? What if other software companies actually start making programs specifically for Lindows? Finally, what if Lindows never removes the must-be-root "feature?"
How long will it be before someone writes a program that relies on the fact that you're running as root? How long before the fabled Linux (a.k.a. Lindows) stability goes to hell and a handbasket? Okay, it might still be better than Windows, but when a program depends the fact that it's root... that's scary.
I sincerely hope that they remove this restriction for the actual release (that this is only in the beta release), and run the shell as a regular user.
Re:r00ted! (Score:2)
File permissions? So you are saying that all critical files are set so no one can delete them? One's that installed by Windows itself can be deleted by any user.. I know they can.
I've set this system up twice, I've set up other people's XP systems. In all cases, all the users were set up as Admin's by default.
Re:r00ted! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also to all the idiots who keep posting "XP has permissions", well of course it does. The complaint here is that Lindows would be like an XP setup that purposely turned all those permissions off!
Why would anyone want this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why would anyone want this? (Score:2)
Come to think of it, if you get CodeWeavers' branch of WINE, it'll integrate with desktop menus as well.
I agree; it sounds like something not far from a standard Linux desktop + WINE, with a neato script to parse a user's Start menu. So it has better WINE integration than Redmond Linux. Woohoo.
KDE (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing, that has already been pointed out, is about the email worms... if you have to run outlook as root, and you get one of those babies... well... *poof*
That said, it looks nice... I'll be impressed when they can demonstrate more stability running windows applications.
But then again, M$ has been trying that for about 2 decades.
Re:KDE (Score:3, Insightful)
So... KDE is GPL'd, and is an integral part of Lindows. Lindows is propreitary, but incorporates binary GPL components. So, this means that Lindows code must also be licensed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license.
Last I checked, Lindows wasn't providing anything but a 99$ one-seat binary. Hrm.....
No wonder mp3.com went bankrupt, the CEO is a nutjob who thinks he can take peoples things for free.
Re:KDE (Score:2)
That depends on whether Lindows code is directly linked to the KDE code or not.
Contrary to popular belivef, people are not required to make all software on a GPL system GPL; it is perfectly acceptable in the GPL to have a GPL system that runs proprietary software.
- Sam
Is it Netsafe?? Doesn't sound like it. (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the *stupidest* thing I have ever heard of. Aren't something like *half* of the script kiddie root hacks out there depending on someone being dumb enough to go onto the net while logged in as root?
Also, there was no mention of any kind of firewalling on this setup. I have a linux server running in my home office. I can say from experience that if there is no firewalling (ipchains/iptables) installed, configured and running, that you are *asking* for trouble.
I understand that this is a Linux distro for the Win98 crowd, and that Win98 isn't secure in the least, but I really hope that the Lindows people give the Win98'ers a fighting chance. Otherwise the k33bler pr0n elves are going to be visiting some new Lindows boxes *real* soon....
I agree (Score:3, Interesting)
Having Lindows log in as root and run everything as root is backwards. At a minimum, create users that have near root access but not EVERYTHING.
It seems like the time spent developing this "piece of art" could be better spent writing documentation and GPL software to manage linux for dummies.
Then there wouldn't even be a need to run Windows software.
Re:I agree (Score:2)
FYI, the MS equivalent of the root account is system, and most services run under this account. A similar group with the log on locally right (which system doesn't have) is Administrators, or which XP users are a member of by default.
What you also have to remember (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't espically worry about doing my work on a Windows system with administrator rights. I DO worry about staying logged in as root. It is more powerful, and as such more dangerous.
Re:Is it Netsafe?? Doesn't sound like it. (Score:2)
No, it's more like 99%. It is hard to break into a secured box. Script kiddies have a field trip breaking into the insecure ones -- there is so many of them to choose from! If the construction industry took security as seriously as certain companies in computer industry do, nearly all houses would be built out of cardboard.
I understand that this is a Linux distro for the Win98 crowd, and that Win98 isn't secure in the least, but I really hope that the Lindows people give the Win98'ers a fighting chance. Otherwise the k33bler pr0n elves are going to be visiting some new Lindows boxes *real* soon.... :-/
If by some chance, this Lindows thing does take off, I can totally see the windows morons claiming that Linux is insecure. It says in the article that This wonderful OS can already run Outlook worms. I guess it wouldn't be windows-compatible without it :-)
Runs as root?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, just because Windows 98 doesn't have security, that means Lindows shouldn't either...? All of the NT-based Windows OSes do have the ability to not run users/programs as root. This is a ridiculous step backward for security, and the "just because Windows 9x does it" excuse is poor at best.
If Lindows becomes popular, viruses will abound for that platform. Is this really any better than Windows? Now Linux has lost the main advantages it has over Windows, namely:
-- It's "free" (interpret that as you will)
-- It's more secure.
This is Microsoft's dream come true -- a chance to point out that not only is "Linux" less secure than Windows, but "Linux" is also not free (never mind that Lindows != Linux; Microsoft also has trouble remembering the difference between GPL and open-source.)
The bottom line is that Lindows as it stands today is not a boon to the Linux community, and it could cause a dangerous black eye to those currently promoting Linux on the desktop. Tread carefully.
My small review (Score:5, Interesting)
To make long story short - it's based on Debian Woody, it got Xandros (previously Corel) nice file manager, and it got a special version of wine which can install Office 2000 very nicely including Explorer 5.0
You can't install Explorer 5.0 or 5.5 seperated - the process fails after download. You cannot install Windows Media Player 7.1 since it's saying "unsupported OS" and Windows Media 6.4 simply thinks the URL's are wrong.
Running Office 2000 (not 97, not XP) runs pretty nice although there lots of GUI bugs there needs to be fixed.
Biggest shit - it installs and doesn't open users - so all done as root, and even if you open users you won't be able to use the "wine" stuff since it needs root premissions or some serious hacking (it's on
Does it worth the money? yes! I need to run Office 2000 - and that gives me the option to use Office 2000 (and I cannot use other Linux office stuff - need to connect to exchange and just the Ximian exchange connector costs $70 - so $29 more won't kill me).
And since it's a debian woody, then hey - APT heaven is here - give me an hour and the distribution will be totally customized.
Some other stuff - it uses XFS as filesystem, it doesn't install nvidia binary drivers in default (need to do it manually), kernel is 2.4.14 + tons of patches, it tries to load every module on earth and frankly - doing a damn cool job. They'll need to fix the network and priting stuff - it sucks as it is now.
Definately recommended if you're planning to use it in corporations.
Oh, as for who did the wine stuff? lets say it's not transgaming, you know who
MeshMesh
Re:My small review (Score:2)
In FACT I got this exact idea from here on slashdot. On my rollout of win2k and O2K I made the default for word to save as rtf. you have to specially tell it to save as a doc. well our office didnt burst into flames, corperate didnt start screaming that we werent standard compliant and fire everyone... just noone noticed EXCEPT for one small thing... I now hear salespeople ask clients to send them a rtf file. and they repeat what I tought them.... RTF files are better than DOC files as every computer can read them unlike doc files.
now if there was a spreadsheet equilivant of rtf... but then excel sheets are actually a rarity in the office. so breaking the word dependancy is very easy and can be done within a week or so. and cince it's spreading in corperate as I tell other IT people, (the ones that care, not the MCSE's they're snotty) more and more rtf's are being used.
I also give my users the choice. Open office is installed on every PC. and I tell the users that I will give them free legal copies of open office (and have given out 20 of them so far... making the use of powerpoint drop by 50%.)
Except for the calendar and groupware, you dont need outlook as you can connect with an exchange server with most any good email program.
Re:My small review (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget:
MacOS is based on yarn.
AmigaOS is based on wires.
DOS is based on twisty-ties.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Re:My small review (Score:4, Informative)
That's just sillyness - both Windows and Unix support threads and pipes - they are totally different programming constructs that have little to do with each other.
COM and .NET
COM is a binary compatability standard, not an API. No amount of work on win32 will help in making COM run. .NET is based heavily on COM (among other things) and is also not supported by win32.
That's so wrong I don't know where to start. COM is a marshaling and interface standard. .NET is a lot of things - including a runtime, API, platform, etc.... It interoperates with COM but is certainly NOT COM-based - MS is essentially abandoning COM for cross-language integration and moving to the CLR instead.
Alas, I dont see COM being successfully implemented by the WINE crew, simply because it is too dificult to do without help from MS. I won't argue that COM is difficult to work with (it's really a bitch), but it's not because it's platform-specific - it was designed to be cross-platform, and implementations of it are available on other platforms - including Linux.
Wine (Score:3, Interesting)
What I find unsettling is that this sneak preview states 99% of Windows applications go "poof" on install (which is not very surprising for anyone who has ever used wine). Yet we've seen screenshots showing Internet Explorer on top of KDE.
So another question stands: are those screenshots real?
Looks like Michael Robertson isn't improving WINE (Score:5, Interesting)
To my dismay, the reviewer's experience with the preview LindowsOS exactly mirrors what you get with a recent build of WINE. Many applications run, but there are serious problems with installers.
This is not to bash the WINE developers who are making great progress with limited resources. I wish them, and Michael, all the success in the world. I just wish that Michael Robertson would commit some of his development staff to improving the core WINE code and contributing it back to the WINE project.
Shameless plug: Do you need step by step instructions on configuring WINE to run popular Windows applications? Check out my web site, Winecentric [winecentric.com]
LindowsOS is a joke (Score:2, Flamebait)
Here's a quote:
So.... let me get this straight... it needs a copy of Windows to run, but still costs $99. And it makes Windows 95 look stable. It is inherently _less_ secure than Win95 was. Even though you still ran as psuedo-root under Win95, you could run AntiVirus software. LindowsOS doesn't have any AV that works.
My favorite quote:
This is a beta and Robertson cautions that it is not expected to work properly
LOL! Beta (as opposed to alpha) is at least supposed to work somewhat properly; it's there to look for bugs. This seems more like "here is LindowsOS, it doesn't work, but we want you to spread some FUD and trick people into thinking it does.
And I don't think that the GNU/Hippies would be too happy about the $99 price tag that includes pretty much all their tools... and that's about it.
Re:LindowsOS is a joke (Score:2)
Does this mean ... (Score:2, Funny)
It will be interesting to see if linux users will be willing to spend money on this software, particularly in light of the fate of Loki.
Study point (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask this question again and again. Ask it to yourself everytime somebody says "Linux on the desktop".
Linux can make it on the desktop, as long as they don't try to be a "me-too" Windowsalike.
Free top-of-the-head ideas for a Linux-based focus:
Linux needs to find its niche (small/medium servers is a good start) and excel there. I can predict that Lindows will soon join Loki on the bench.
Re:Study point (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux *can* make it on the desktop, but most Linux advocates miss the most important point:
No one cares about operating systems. People use applications, not operating systems.
Something like Lindows is the ONLY way you are going to get people to consider switching. What if Windows had had no DOS compatibility? It would have died a fiery death. It is not an exaggeration to say that the reason Windows won over the competing Windowing systems early on is because Windows had the best DOS compatibility.
If anyone wants Linux on the desktop to succeed, you must have rock-solid Windows application compatibility, and rock-solid hardware driver compatibility. That's the only path, and anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves.
I disagree. (Score:2)
Linux can make it on the desktop, as long as they don't try to be a "me-too" Windowsalike.
Personally, I think making a "Windows-ish" distro is the best move the Linux community can make. Linux's biggest selling point is not that it's more stable, has a better design, is more secure, etc. Linux's biggest selling point is that it's free (as in beer).
Think about it. On the one hand you have an OS that runs all of your games, all of your apps, feels familiar, and costs 100-2000 dollars per computer (Windows XP). On the other hand, you have an OS that does all of the same things but is free (Linux). Which one are you going to choose? More to the point, what is your management going to choose? Having a "windowsalike" distro is a potent weapon for corporate acceptance.
Of course, if you don't like your Linux Windows-flavored, just use a distro more to your liking. You've got other choices, you know.
hm. crossover and perhaps a Wine-bundle project? (Score:4, Interesting)
This sounds basically like the crossover plugin [codeweavers.com] done totally wrong!
There is no reason (technically) that this needs to be a dedicated Linux distribution. The only thing I can think of is that they are doing this for marketing and/or political reasons. I am sure Michael Robertson knows what he is going from a marketing perspective but he is trying to succeed in a technical market.
The one thing that we should learn from this is that it might be time to a dedicated wine-bundle project.
Specifically... Take wine snapshots and QA them and try to get them as stable as possible. This would of course have to be coordinated with the wine project.
This should also include bundling wrappers around Windows programs so that they can be installed easily.
IE you could have a debian package named wine-bundle-ie which would of course install Internet Explorer by downloading it on the client machine similar to the way crossover does it.
This would get you the best of both worlds... Windows apps on a Linux machine and would be an Open Source collaboration.
I try to run 100% Open Source/Free Software but it would be nice to complete invoices for my clients who use Excel.
Kevin
Why Lindows may not work (Score:5, Insightful)
If people want to run windows apps they are going to choose windows. If they do run Lindows, Lindows itself will not be able to keep up with changes microsoft implements just to cost companies like lindows money.
Just my
-Sean
OS/2 was killed by IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
Jerry Pournelle wrote an excellent article circa 1997 for Byte about how badly IBM dropped the ball on OS/2. Of the interesting highlights:
- IBM drastically underestimated demand for OS/2 2.0 when it first came out. They didn't make nearly enough diskettes, and there were many stories of Eggheads (and other stores) running out of copies. I can attest to this, I couldn't get a copy when it first came out, either
- Comdex, 1991: IBM was charging an OUTRAGEOUS price for their SDK (on the order of $150-$200). MS was handing SDKs for Win3.0 out to anybody who walked by.
- Comdex, 1991: IBM OS/2 2.0 won best-of-show against Win3.0. Jerry recounts having to wait HALF AN HOUR at the awards show while they hunted down an IBM rep to even accept the award. All the while, the runner-up (Microsoft) was swarming with reps, all asking questions as to why they didn't win, handing out more SDKs, etc
There was even the time I called IBM tech support and got literally laughed at by the tech support for trying to run OS/2 on a 386/40 (recommended was a 386/33 at the time). 486/50s were bleeding edge at the time.When OS/2 2.0 came out, only Win3.0 came out. IBM dropped OS/2 big time. By the time OS/2 2.1 came out, Win3.11 was well on its way and nobody gave two wits about OS/2 any more.
Finally, keep in mind that OS/2 1.x was the laughing stock of OSes at the time. Even more so than Win386, Win2.0, etc. The DOS box was nicely referred to as the "penalty box" for how miserably it performed.
Say what you want about Microsoft (I don't like them either). They know how to market their wares. And when you bumble as badly as IBM did, you have no chance.
Unhappy marriage (Score:4, Informative)
The newbie user playing around as root (maybe without a password?) is an obvious problem issue, especially if rootage is required for running Windows software in the first place. I need hardly mention that it's a security issue if all those Outlook viriis get to run as root
Also, as most Windows apps seem to be nonworking at the moment, there better be a LOT of improvement in this field before release, or Lindows will be about as popular as a can of BBQ sauce at the three little pigs' house. It needs to run IE, it needs to run Office, and it would be just great if it'd run Windows games (yeah, right).
Btw, an oversimplified install might be just great for the newbies, but not for anyone else. I think the WinXP Pro install was oversimplified, but at least it let me add non-root user accounts and reconfigure hardware if I liked. Besides, I don't think Lindows is going to be used mainly by newbies - at least initially, it's going to be used by people looking to make the switch between Windows and Linux and wanting something that will let them run both kinds of apps, so they needn't convert 300 word DOCs to RTF or suchlike.
Congrats to the Lindows people for building stuff like autodetecting hardware into the installer - that stuff is always nice. Mandrake already has this and does it somewhat well, but I still remember the pain of having to feed Debian the I/O port adress of my CD-ROM back when last I tried to install it. I never did finish that install, as it was never able to find my bog standard Logitech PS/2 mouse. Oh well.
Conclusion: Get Windows apps to run and Lindows will be interesting! Ship it like it is today, and it will end up in the OS trashcan with BeOS et al.
So, it does what exactly? (Score:2)
I'm failing to see the value-added synergistic paradigm.
It sure is as secure as windows (Score:3)
Right there, one of the most important reasons to use Linux is thrown out the window. The only thing we need now is a Linux port of Lookout, err... I mean Outlook, and Melissa / ILOVEYOU / Sircam / whatever will follow.
From the sound of it... (Score:2)
bluescreen and things will be just peachy.
Part of the issue of running as root is probably for the simplicity of installing programs. While a non-root user can install programs on linux, he can't necessarily do it so its available for the entire system, and as a security issue, you don't want to. The installer might have suid privilages that can get around this problem, but then you risk installing infected files, and once again, working around the very security features that make linux a more secure choice over windows in the first place.
An option would be an installer that installs every program into its own directory structure, and no programs can be installed suid. Each program would need its own registry subset, etc. This would of course cause conflicts with programs such as norton virusscan that expect to be able to search the whole system, and programs that interact with other programs and expect the native insecurity of windows to operate.
-Restil
Re:You know, you don't have to bash Windows... (Score:3, Interesting)
As my friends who are diehard windows fanatics keep telling me, I am simply not familiar with the rock hard stability and unbreakable security of the latest Windows operating systems. I am not aware if a regular user is able to install any program on the system without that program comprimising system security or crashing the system.
However, if those users are still running 98, then they're still subject to the same security issues we've all been joking about for the last 5 years. And if they move over to Lindows, and assume the default root user for running all programs, they'll be no less vulnerable on that platform. My bash in this regard is appropriate.
And if after 15 years Microsoft finally got it perfect, well good for them. Move beyond that. If Lindows is supposed to help us replace it, it needs to provide all the good things that windows has provided over the years (primarily the userfriendliness and wealth of applications) and not drag with it all the bad things, that for the sake of not bashing windows constantly I will omit this time.
And remember, NT 3.51 was pretty stable in its own right, but they managed to screw it up on later operating systems, even in the NT line, and service packs have typically created more problems than they've solved. I'm glad you think the latest incarnation of windows is perfectly bugfree and secure. That doesn't mean I need to ignore their previous track record, even if now security is their topmost priority. If being secure and bugfree had been their goals from the beginning we wouldn't have had so many fun years worth of material justified bashing them over. Of course, that might have meant they would have had a slower production cycle, and competitors might have gotten the upper hand in some markets, and it was far more important to Microsoft that they remain the industry leader, product quality be damned.
But thats just my opinion.
-Restil
This is hopeless (Score:2, Insightful)
You will get NO support from any software vendor for running their windows app on anything other than... tada; Windows.
OS/2 had just about the best windows sub-system ever, but it too had problems running certain windows apps.
No business in its right mind is going to depend on this software. If Linux is to make inroads on the desktop, it will need native desktop applications. Not Java apps, not emulated Windows apps; native desktop applications.
Fortunately it's getting them and some of them are quite good (Star Office is usable, for instance).
And yes, people will pay for them if they are GOOD.
The /. monkeys suck (Score:2, Troll)
Licenses honored? (Score:4, Interesting)
I fear the license wars about to erupt.
Everyone's a critic (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand how these guys got to this point. Clearly Robertson is connect to some kind of VC funding hose, or he would be working on his second startup in 10 minutes.
But there's next to nothing to this distro:
But clearly what Linux has been waiting for to turn into windows is progress on WINE [winehq.org] . When it works, Linux will run the Windows apps the rest of the world uses. Until then, the idea just won't work.
In this situation the straightforward thing to do is to hire first-classes WINE hackers and move the project forward with the force of money. And why Lindows isn't doing this is beyond me. Perhaps some kind of brand-development trick? Unless the VCs have some other tricks up their sleeve, I don't see how anyone's gonna get their money back. Anyone know anything about why Lindows is proceeding this way? Anything tidbits on FC [www.fuckedcompanycom]?
I fear Lindows (Score:2)
Be afraid. Be very afraid. This will be worse than The AOL Christmas years ago.
Raw sockets? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, you need root access to use raw sockets, but if Lindows forces you to run as root (let's be honest here, if it doesn't work as a regular user you're only viable option is to run as root). So now we have Linux machines with computer dolts running as root who also have the ability to unleash various macro viruses upon the world.
That's double plus ungood.
My requirements for something like this (Score:2)
2. Is stabler than Windows
3. Doesn't require Windows
4. Doesn't do away with the things that make Linux a good OS
Someone please explain to me how Lindows even comes close to this. I have Windows. If I'm going to use something else to run Windows programs, it has to work better than Windows. Period. Even by the most optimistic things I've read about this, it doesn't look as if it's going to.
And what was that in the article about it booting in Windows, or dual-booting with Windows, but not dual-booting with Linux? They're kidding, right?
Wow this sounds awsome (Score:2, Funny)
Everyone tells me their killer app the IE browser rocks.The trouble is application support. I would like to try some of these applications but I really dont want to give up the stuff I am used to. Like the gimp, xine, xmms, gaim, enlightenment, soundtracker, gcc, vi and LTSP(for all my net-appliances scattered about) just to mention a few I use most. I know there is comparable apps but they dont have all the features I need.
Now I have the opportunity to try some of these killer apps without having to sacrifice the things I have come to like so much, except hard drive space.
Lameness (Score:3, Interesting)
Contribute to the community or get out of the game.
linux viruses (Score:2, Interesting)
If this distro became popular (even only in a business setting), Linux would be in the same boat as Windows as far as viruses go. Any binary packages you would download would be more likely to contain a virus, and who installs rpms and debs as a user?
Of course this risk is already there, but increased popularity would make it more risky.
Here we go again *sigh* (Score:2)
At the end of the day, we all know what we like. Stop the nonsensical posts, and stick with the subject at hand. Please.
Sadness (Score:2)
It really discourages me to read so many people writing such mean things about a product admittedly in a beta stage. I read through post after post just hoping to find someone that had a positive thought, but maybe my browsing level was set too high.
What seemed most frustrating to me is that people are complaining that Lindows lacks feature X, or doesn't have any advantages over "apt-get Y". Actually, I regard this as a positive step forward. My understanding of Lindows is that it is a customized Linux distribution intended to be a drop-in replacement for users who only use basic Office applications. I appreciate and encourage Linux developers to create narrow, focused distributions in addition to huge general purpose ones. Imagine a store where you could purchase a Linux distribution that only runs MAME; a distribution that only runs Word and Excel for example; a web server distribution; and so on. Each distribution would behave (for the user) a lot like a game console - a piece of hardware that performs one useful function.
I for one would be quite happy to see Lindows succeed in its market niche, and engender many imitators. Reading the review posted on NewsForge, I really only got the impression that the reviewer was constantly disappointed because you couldn't add users, it was tough to open a shell window, and the WINE emulation wasn't much better than the off-the-shelf source.
On the other hand, the reviewer seemed to be complaining that there weren't any options available when installing Lindows. Considering the market niche the product aims for, this is good design; it enables customers to begin appreciating their new product rapidly, without having to worry about creating lots of users and passwords and downloading lots of updates.
Please, encourage entrepreneurs like Mr. Robertson to continue working on new products. His product may not be for everybody; and he may need to improve its security and WINE support, but in the end he might just release a useful product.
Waste of time (Score:2)
"Windows Media 7.1 doesn't install (it detects an unsupported operating system), Norton Anti Virus 2002 doesn't work, ICQ2001B installs perfectly but doesn't run, Windows Media 6.4 installs okay, even installs new codecs, but when it needs to start playing from the network it says that the address is not found."
Okay, I'll give you the fact that's its a beta product but remember this is a beta you have to pay for. I would expect it to be able to at least do something? It can't even install Internet Explorer. The review doesn't seem to mention any Windows app it can run. The issue of having to run everything as root is obviously scary. Let's say that if (and that's a big IF) you can run Outlook as your mail client then now that app has root access to your system. Not a very fuzzy feeling in my tummy over that.
So yes, a beta product that doesn't work very well. No surprise there. However compared to other Windows/Other-OS efforts like WINE for Linux and Odin for OS/2, this falls really short. Odin at least can run most Win32 apps and you can even run Visual C++ under it. That's pretty impressive. This isn't especially if I have to pay for it to try it out.
The whole Lindows thing is just another bad effort at diverting focus away from the real Linux underneath. With the recent demise of Loki and people turning to Transgamer, it will always be a Windows world, even if it looks like KDE on top.
liB
Here's Why It Can't Be Good (Score:2)
I know what they need! (Score:5, Funny)
Inigo: Are you the Miracle Max who worked for the suits for all those years?
Max: The suits' stinking lawyers sued me. And thank you so much for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice tongue clamp, and run current through it. We're closed! [Max closes a flap over the door hole, but Inigo still knocks] Beat it or I'll call the Business Software Alliance!
Fezzik: I'm on the Business Software Alliance.
Max: You are the Business Software Alliance!
Inigo: We need a miracle. It's very important.
Max: Look, I'm retired. Besides, why would you want someone the suits' stinking lawyers fired. I might vaporize whatever you want to make the miracle.
Inigo: It's already vapor.
Max: It is, eh? I'll have a look. Bring it in. [They enter. Max examines the laptop.] I've seen worse.
Inigo: Sir... Sir.
Max: Huh?
Inigo: We're in a terrible rush.
Max: Don't rush me, sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles. You got money?
Inigo: Distro CDs...
Max: Sheesh! I never worked for so little; except once and that was a very noble cause.
Inigo: This is noble, sir. It's software is... crippled... child processes on the brink of starvation...
Max: Are you a rotten liar.
Inigo: I need it to help avenge my DR-DOS prompt, murdered these twenty years.
Max: Your first story was better. Where's that compressed air. It's probably hiding your porn, huh. Well, I'll ask it.
Inigo: It's vapor. It can't tell you.
Max: Ooooohh! Look who knows so much, eh! It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly vapor. There's a big difference between mostly vapor and all vapor. Please open the CD-ROM drive. [He inserts the compressed air nozzle] Now, mostly vapor is slightly running. Now, all vapor... well, with all vapor, there's usually only one thing that you can do.
Inigo: What's that?
Max: Hype it in Wired and hope for an IPO. [Max shoots air into laptop and yells at it] Hey! Hello in there! Hey! What's so important? Whatcha got here, that's worth running for? [Max pushes on laptop's space bar]
Laptop: [barely audible] Lin....dows...
Inigo: [excited] Lindows! You heard it! You could not ask for a more noble cause than that.
Max: Sonny, Lindows is the greatest thing in the world; except for a nice CCD - Caffeinated Choco-Death, where the caffiene is nice and strong, and the marshmallows melt. They're so perky. I love that. But that's not what it said! It distinctly said, 'bit hose'. And as we all know, 'bit hose' means a fat pipe. So, you were probably surfing for warez and it segfaulted...
Old Woman: [interrupting] Liar!! Liar!! Liarrrrr!
Max: Get back, witch!
Old Woman: I'm not a witch, I'm your wife. But after what you just said, I'm not even sure I want to be that anymore.
Max: You never had it so good. [Max smiles at Inigo]
Valerie: [Max's wife] Lindows, who said Lindows, Max?
Max: Don't say another word, Valerie... [Inigo looks on in disbelief]
Valerie: You're afraid. Ever since Microsoft fired him, his confidence has shattered.
Max: [yelling] Why'd you say that name?! You promised me that you would never say that name!
Valerie: What, Microsoft?!
Max: [cringes] Ahh!!
Valerie: Microsoft!
Max: Ahh!!
[Valerie is chasing Max around the room yelling. Max is covering his ears]
Valerie: Microsoft!
Max: Ahh!!
Valerie: Microsoft!
Max: Ahh!!
Valerie: [now in a sing-songy voice] Microsoft... Microsoft! Microsoft! Microsoft! Microsoft!
Max: I'm not listening!
Valerie: Lindows, processes expiring and you don't have the decency to say why you won't help!
Max: Nobody's hearing nothing!
Valerie: Microsoft! [She continues to yell 'Microsoft']
Inigo: [interrupting] This is the user's true love. If you heal it, it will stop Microsoft's monopoly!
Max: [to Valerie] Shut up!
Inigo: Thank you. Thank you.
Max: Wait, wait. I make it better, Microsoft suffers?
Inigo: Lost sales galore!
Max: Ha ha!! That is a noble cause! Give me the distros! I'm on the job!
(Mad props to Robert Zabaga [mit.edu] for his transcription of the original script)
Lindows ripping off the crapiest UI in the world (Score:3, Insightful)
KDE can look like Windows (or half a dozen other OSes) or I like using Gnome's CDE panel layout with a Mac OS style thin menu up top which gives a similiar look OS X.
Why are we in the Linux community so damn intent on copying Windows. Everytime someone talks about Windows and its shortcomings the UI and its inconsistencies and oddities come up. However, when we as a community start building a Desktop environment everyone brags on the interfaces, desktops and even the distros that imitate the Evil freakin' Empire. If you like it so much then stay in your Windows world.
There are so many linux diehards that run linux on your servers and screw around with it occasionally but don't take the few hours on the side to set up a user interface and actually live with the OS 24/7 as your workstation.
I do live with it and once it is set up properly anyone including my wife can use it. The Distros need to hard look at moving the desktop interface, UI and user experience forward instead of blindly following the lead of Redmond.
_______________________________________________
correction (Score:3, Informative)
Also relevant might be that MS has only filed a trademark infringement suit against Lindows, not a claim of "illegal" reverse engineering, and I think if your post was right, MS would have brought it up a while ago.
b
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2)
It's only those who somehow think the most important thing is Linux getting really really high desktop market share right now who won't scoff at this "lindows" crap. Because to get really really high desktop market share right now, you'd basically have to make Linux into Windows. And then, Linux would suck.
So just be aware when you throw the word "we" around.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2)
You don't get the difference between obligatory and optional.
Lindows is emulating Windows, so what? There are dozens of distributions out there and Lindows will be just one of them.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
But ur forgetting what rose PC+MS to power, it was all the software available and its marketing. realy we should work on our own apps,s/w and shout out abo ut those.
So wine is nice, but not any more important then any other linux app. and we (community/ppl who care) realy need to work on pr and more office & user type apps. and most importantly linux Docs, HowTo's and Tutorials to help educate others
I wont be getting/trying any of the Lindows/Mandrake Gaming Edition linux flavours ever i disagree with the whole idea, linux is linux(or unix) but niether are windows and thank god.
want more/better games, push the openGL2 and openAL movements.
-Trevelyan
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2)
I don't WANT ans OS that's 100% like Windows. That's WHY I use Linux!!!!
Why, oh why can't we start coming up with new ideas and implementing them? Why must we constantly play catch-up to Windows? Who gives a rat's ass about Windows? The key to getting more people to use Linux is *NOT* to be more Windows-like. The only way to topple the MS monopoly is to make Linux something completely different from Windows. Make it do stuff that you simply can't do on Windows. Make it *easier* to use than Windows, not *just like* Windows. Make it so that it's easier and faster for people to do the things they like to do on a computer. Come up with the "killer app" for Linux that everyone simply HAS to have. Invent new UI paradigms that are more intuitive. Do whatever it takes to make Linux better than Windows, but for chrissakes stop looking to Windows as the model!
Forget Windows. Just make Linux so insanely great that everyone will want it.
Why Lindows is not doing business in Washington St (Score:3)
"Lindows.com Founder and CEO Robertson said that his firm would provide proof that no business was done in Washington, let alone Redmond, and talked about it in a public statement.
'We're looking forward to showing the Court the widespread use of the term 'windows' or variations thereof by literally hundreds of companies which are not endorsed or sponsored by Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft has chosen not to sue these companies demonstrates their true motivation in this case is to crush competition from a promising new technology which threatens their illegally obtained monopoly,' said Lindows.com CEO, Michael Robertson."
Re:$99 (Score:2)
Hetz
Re:More than a name Alike (Score:2)
This guy gets 100 lashes from the Afrosheen Wet Noodle.
Re:Horrible review (Score:2)
Yeah, sacrifice security for ease-of-use. Brilliant.
Re:Horrible review (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Horrible review (Score:3, Insightful)
THINK BEFORE POSTING.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)