Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Lindows Reviewed

Posted by Cliff on Fri Jan 25, 2002 06:45 PM
from the the-shades-have-finally-been-opened dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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 | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 490 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Maybe improve DVD playback? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TenPin22 (213106) on Friday January 25 2002, @06:56PM (#2904152) Homepage
    The state of DVD playback on Linux is not what it is on Windows. Maybe Lindows along with the Linux DirectX equivelant libraries will allow Windows software DVD players to work?

    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...
  • Neat Point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clinko (232501) on Friday January 25 2002, @06:56PM (#2904153) Homepage Journal
    Here's a neat point from the article
    "There's something scary about an imaginary LindowsOS-from-Windows convert, happily running as root, downloading emails with infected .exe or .pif screensavers attached -- or even with infected .rpms."

    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 by The Turd Report (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @06:59PM
      • Re:Neat Point by cscx (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:11PM
        • Re:Neat Point by Afrosheen (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:44PM
          • Re:Neat Point by Rude Turnip (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @10:48PM
            • Re:Neat Point by Afrosheen (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @01:43PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Neat Point by ichimunki (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @09:49AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Funny)

      by 3prong (241218) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:01PM (#2904190)

      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.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Neat Point by linzeal (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:59PM
      • Re:Neat Point by fire-eyes (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:06PM
    • Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rev.LoveJoy (136856) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:07PM (#2904234) Homepage Journal
      I am not sure if linux users are particularly smarter as a group. :-) More willing to spend time to figure out, fix, update and work with their computer system, OH YES!

      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

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Neat Point by drik00 (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:38PM
        • Re:Neat Point by Dave_bsr (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:31PM
          • Re:Neat Point by drik00 (Score:1) Sunday January 27 2002, @04:50PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@pacbel[ ]et ['l.n' in gap]> on Friday January 25 2002, @07:10PM (#2904254) Homepage
      Oh. Right. Real insightful. Excuse the dripping sarcasm.

      "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.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Neat Point by Monkeyman334 (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:52PM
        • Re:Neat Point by jgerman (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @08:42AM
      • Re:Neat Point by coyul (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:02PM
        • Re:Neat Point by 2nd Post! (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @05:03AM
          • Re:Neat Point by sethdelackner (Score:1) Sunday January 27 2002, @05:49PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Neat Point by 2nd Post! (Score:2) Sunday January 27 2002, @08:05PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Neat Point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rgmoore (133276) <glandauer@charter.net> on Friday January 25 2002, @07:21PM (#2904318) Homepage

      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.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Neat Point by North_Lights (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:49PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Neat Point by mpe (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @06:41AM
    • so how do we fix this? by Narcocide (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:21PM
    • Intelligence isnt the issue by HanzoSan (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:39PM
    • Re:Neat Point by jazman_777 (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:54PM
    • Re:Neat Point by fire-eyes (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:04PM
      • Re:Neat Point by Morgahastu (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:13PM
    • Re:Neat Point by Morgahastu (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:10PM
    • Re:Neat Point by mystran (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:28PM
    • Re:Neat Point by melatonin (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:38PM
    • My motto in life by lars (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @09:02PM
    • Re:Neat Point by Pope (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @09:07PM
    • Re:Neat Point by The Bungi (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @01:28AM
    • Re:Neat Point by LafinJack (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @12:33PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • No nagging on the install! (Score:3, Funny)

    by sllort (442574) on Friday January 25 2002, @06:56PM (#2904154) Homepage Journal
    Not only did the installation process not give us the opportunity to add users other than root, it didn't even explain that we *should* add users other than root, didn't tell us that the account was root, and even tended to discourage us from entering the optional security password for root, because, "if you lose this password it cannot be recovered."

    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!

  • ah by r00tarded (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @06:57PM
  • Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @06:57PM
  • So, wait a second... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Luminair (515136) on Friday January 25 2002, @06:58PM (#2904174)
    ...why not just use XP or 2K? They run Windows apps better than Lindows, and sure seems just as stable as Linux... Not to mention the better hardware and software support.

    Right?
    • Re:So, wait a second... by ryusen (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:06PM
    • Re:So, wait a second... by geekoid (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:12PM
    • Re:So, wait a second... by Beckman (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:20PM
      • Re:So, wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Loligo (12021) on Friday January 25 2002, @08:03PM (#2904502) Homepage
        >1. the public's general dislike of windows

        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
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:So, wait a second... by Flammon (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:04PM
    • No, I think this guy has a point... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SlashChick (544252) <erica@@@erica...biz> on Friday January 25 2002, @08:23PM (#2904577) Homepage Journal
      Let's say you're Mr. Joe Generic PC User, and you run solitaire, Outlook Express, some Internet Explorer, and maybe you have an AOL dialup account. You also run a couple of other programs you happen to like, such as Quicken or Word.

      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:So, wait a second... by tempest303 (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:31PM
    • Re:So, wait a second... by madenosine (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @11:00PM
    • Re:So, wait a second... by Myxorg (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @11:39PM
    • Re:So, wait a second... by Malcontent (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @12:20AM
    • Re:So, wait a second... by MobyTurbo (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @08:45PM
    • Re:So, wait a second... by Luminair (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:30PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • True Windows emulation... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sparkz (146432) on Friday January 25 2002, @06:59PM (#2904179) Homepage
    "Not only did the installation process not give us the opportunity to add users other than root, it didn't even explain that we *should* add users other than root, didn't tell us that the account was root, and even tended to discourage us from entering the optional security password for root, because, "if you lose this password it cannot be recovered." "

    "trying to run Windows programs in a user account will cause problems."

    Wow, even emulating Windows' very own security model...

  • credibility (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mz001b (122709) on Friday January 25 2002, @06:59PM (#2904180)
    If nothing else, this early version's availability will give Lindows and its CEO, Michael Robertson, credibility with the Linux community that they did not have before

    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?

    • Re:credibility by kodiar (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:25PM
      • Re:credibility by glwtta (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @02:04AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • r00ted! by ImaLamer (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:01PM
    • Re:r00ted! by nvrrobx (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:06PM
      • Re:r00ted! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:25PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:r00ted! by hetz (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:09PM
    • Re:r00ted! by cscx (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:32PM
      • Re:r00ted! by ImaLamer (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:00PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • When you MUST be root...? by DeadVulcan (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @09:40PM
    • Re: Research is a hard thing. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @11:28PM
    • Re:r00ted! by smcv (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @01:23PM
      • Re:r00ted! by spitzak (Score:3) Saturday January 26 2002, @09:07PM
  • Why would anyone want this? by archnerd (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:01PM
  • KDE (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mizhi (186984) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:01PM (#2904194) Homepage
    It looks like KDE. The article also says that 99% of the programs he tried didn't work. I'm probably going to get bitched out, but I'm still a skeptic.

    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 by kmcmartin (Score:3) Friday January 25 2002, @07:23PM
      • Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:47PM
      • Re:KDE by Kiwi (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @09:19PM
        • Re:KDE by kmcmartin (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @01:16AM
          • Re:KDE by julesh (Score:1) Sunday January 27 2002, @09:05AM
    • [OT] Linux vs Windows by mizhi (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:37PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by jbuilder (81344) <(evadnikufesin) (at) (gmail.com)> on Friday January 25 2002, @07:02PM (#2904201)
    The single biggest issue I see here *is* that Lindows has you do everything while running as root.

    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.... :-/
  • Runs as root?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SlashChick (544252) <erica@@@erica...biz> on Friday January 25 2002, @07:03PM (#2904210) Homepage Journal
    "Windows users who are trying out Lindows won't be concerned about this, though, so if they are the target market for LindowsOS, the "running as root" thing shouldn't be a problem."

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2002, @07:03PM (#2904212)
    I preffer to stay Anonymous (you know - NDA stuff)

    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 /opt/wine-lindows). But - you can move the wine out and play it on Mandrake, SuSE, Redhat or Slackware quite easily ;)

    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 by Duderstadt (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:39PM
    • Re:My small review by xanth (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:49PM
      • Re:My small review by Duderstadt (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:05PM
        • Re:My small review (Score:4, Funny)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday January 25 2002, @08:16PM (#2904552)
          Windows is based on threads, while UNIX is based on pipes.

          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!
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:My small review (Score:4, Informative)

          by crt (44106) on Friday January 25 2002, @08:52PM (#2904675)
          Threading: Windows is based on threads, while UNIX is based on pipes.

          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.

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:My small review by dreamchaser (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @01:57PM
    • Re:My small review by Anthracks (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:41PM
    • Re:My small review by jerryasher (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:33PM
    • Re:My small review by Lumpy (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @10:38PM
    • Re:My small review by Wumpus (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @11:48PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Wine (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Flavio (12072) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:04PM (#2904215) Homepage
    So we know what their secret to running windows apps is: Wine.

    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?
    • Re:Wine by Score0, Overrated (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:07PM
      • Re:Wine by Flavio (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:14PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Wine by chrisv (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:24PM
  • by dudeman2 (88399) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:04PM (#2904217) Homepage

    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.

    • Unless and until WINE is improved to run the MS Office / MSIE /NameYourApplicationHere installer, people will always need a dual boot system to do the initial application install.

    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 by cscx (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:07PM
  • Does this mean ... by murphj (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:08PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Study point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rho (6063) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:08PM (#2904242) Homepage Journal
    Keeping in mind that this is an early beta of LindowsOS, one of the first questions that comes to mind is, who is Michael Robertson targeting? Once the Windows user gets LindowOS installed, he's looking at an interface that is, while similar to Windows, a foreign one.

    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:

    • A disk-image distribution for a web/email computer
    • GameOS--an OS with built-in APIs/libraries for network 3D games (that are downloadable from the Internet
    • Home server: install-and-forget firewall, family server, mail/web server with an arrangement with DynDNS [dyndns.org] for a family-based domain name resolving to their cable modem.

    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 by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:48PM
    • Re:Study point by Reality Master 101 (Score:3) Friday January 25 2002, @07:52PM
      • Re:Study point by Rogerborg (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @06:27AM
        • Re:Study point by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @11:39AM
    • I disagree. by megaduck (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:02PM
      • Re:I disagree. by innocent_white_lamb (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @01:56AM
    • Re:Study point by siphoncolder (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @11:23PM
    • Re:Opposing view by mpe (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @05:53AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • why? by greymond (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:08PM
  • by burtonator (70115) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:11PM (#2904257)
    After reading this article. It basically sounds like they are going to take debian, add some KDE skins, tweak the KDE menu and configure WINE so that they have a stable and reliable version that can run as many windows programs as possible.

    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
  • $99 by kenneth_martens (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:11PM
    • Re:$99 by Thalaric (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:40PM
    • Re:$99 by HeUnique (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:51PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not vaporware by anon757 (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:12PM
  • Why Lindows may not work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smoondog (85133) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:12PM (#2904274)
    Unfortunately, history has told Lindows a bit, but I'm not sure they listened. Hardware compatibility issues aside, IBM OS/2 had a great platform for running windows, unix (with some free software) and os/2 apps all on the same box at the same time. It was awesome, 32 bit pre-emptive multitasking running 16bit windows apps. If an app crashes, just ctrl-esc and kill it. Unfortunately, IBM practically couldn't give it away. It didn't take.

    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 .02

    -Sean
  • Unhappy marriage (Score:4, Informative)

    by W2k (540424) <wilhelm.svenselius@NoSPAm.gmail.com> on Friday January 25 2002, @07:13PM (#2904276) Homepage Journal
    From the preview, it sounds like Lindows tries to be both Linux and Windows at once, but fails on both counts.

    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? by Brian Knotts (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:15PM
  • what would be nice by x130844 (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:15PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not available to people in Washington??? by LordDartan (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:23PM
  • This sounds a lot like... by spankfish (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:28PM
  • by RelliK (4466) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:30PM (#2904356)
    Not only did the installation process not give us the opportunity to add users other than root, it didn't even explain that we *should* add users other than root, didn't tell us that the account was root, and even tended to discourage us from entering the optional security password for root, because, "if you lose this password it cannot be recovered."

    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.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • From the sound of it... by Restil (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:38PM
  • how long? by ryusen (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:40PM
  • This is hopeless by mintoman (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:40PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • More than a name Alike by oldstrat (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:41PM
  • The /. monkeys suck by ECXStar (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:44PM
  • Licenses honored? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eric Seppanen (79060) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:44PM (#2904413) Homepage
    So, did these folks get source, or offers for source, for all the GPLed components? I haven't seen anybody come forward to say whether these folks are paying attention to the terms allowing them to redistribute other people's code.

    I fear the license wars about to erupt.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Isn't that ridiculous? by fezadow (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:49PM
  • Why not use VMWare ? by Lord Hugh Toppingham (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:50PM
  • Everyone's a critic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by electroniceric (468976) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:50PM (#2904448)
    Nothing like throwing in your 2 cents when they're the same as everyone elses....

    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:

    • They've made a new "easier" installer. The Mandrake installer has an automation feature already, as does RH's and others.
    • They installed WINE. Codeweavers' RPM does that really nicely, thank you, and not as root, either.
    • They replaced the file manager. Konqi's a bit confusing, but not that bad - they could have just disabled in.

    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 by xtremex (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @07:53PM
  • Raw sockets? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by doorbot.com (184378) on Friday January 25 2002, @08:03PM (#2904501) Journal
    For all the hubbub that Steve Gibson made about Windows XP and it's raw sockets taking over the world, burning your toast, and painting your room pink, I would think Lindows would make him, and other over-reacting folk, well, over-react.

    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.
  • A note on the lack of help by marcmac (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:05PM
  • My requirements for something like this by pyramid termite (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:05PM
  • Doesn't it sorta defeat the purpose? by MoneyT (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:08PM
  • the answer isn't lindows by kz45 (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:31PM
  • Wow this sounds awsome by fktup (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:31PM
  • Lameness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ogerman (136333) on Friday January 25 2002, @08:31PM (#2904617)
    I have two words to summarize: bottom feeders

    Contribute to the community or get out of the game.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Are we trying for world domination, or not? by pantherace (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:33PM
  • linux viruses by chihowa (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:36PM
  • penguin icon ? by dostick (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:51PM
  • Here we go again *sigh* by Afrosheen (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:51PM
  • Sadness by glassware (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @08:52PM
    • Re:Sadness by nomadic (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @11:14PM
  • Horrible review by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @08:59PM
  • I thought by FIGJAM (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:03PM
  • Waste of time by prototype (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @09:05PM
  • Lindows:give it a chance by icecoldimages (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:49PM
  • Phew... by Cheetah86 (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @09:54PM
  • Target audience for lindows by brandonsr (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @10:04PM
  • Here's Why It Can't Be Good by Lethyos (Score:2) Friday January 25 2002, @10:22PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Well, it's nice to get Linux out there... by xanadu-xtroot.com (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @10:27PM
  • I know what they need! (Score:5, Funny)

    by wildwood (153376) on Friday January 25 2002, @10:29PM (#2904983)
    Max: What?! What?!
    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)
  • If Lindows Succeeds... by hyyx (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @10:50PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Why not create a MS-Office rip-off? by k2x (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @10:56PM
  • by ACK!! (10229) on Friday January 25 2002, @11:44PM (#2905209) Journal
    One of the reasons I fled the Windoze world was the crappy limited UI.

    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.

    ________________________________________________ __
  • I love win2k, I love Linux ! - Why use Lindows? by bushboy (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @01:51AM
  • Perfect Emulation ! by matrix0040 (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @02:50AM
  • Not vaporware? by Otis_INF (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @04:44AM
  • Borg Tux? by mrfiddlehead (Score:2) Saturday January 26 2002, @11:18AM
  • Told you! by jamirocake (Score:1) Saturday January 26 2002, @12:31PM
  • Re:In summary by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:04PM
  • Re:Lindows by jbuilder (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @07:08PM
  • correction (Score:3, Informative)

    by poemofatic (322501) on Friday January 25 2002, @07:14PM (#2904285) Homepage
    There is nothing wrong with reverse engineering. Reverse engineering brought us AMD as a competitor to Intel, as well as IBM clones -- it's complicated, as AMD also pays royalties to Intel for other IP. IANAL, but I vaguely recall some federal(?) statutes which actually protect the right to reverse engineer. Any lawyers out here are welcome to correct/elaborate.

    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
    [ Parent ]
  • 30 replies beneath your current threshold.