As someone who currently owns a bricked Boxee Box, I'm somewhat pleased they're finally focusing on just the Boxee Box, because that thing seriously needs some love. It was really cool for the first month or so when it worked, but the forced firmware updates brick Boxee Boxes left and right (according to the forums). The browser is absolutely terrible and isn't supported by Hulu, the "mouse" on the remote is one of the worst things I've ever used (try using arrow keys to move one pixel at a time).

They have a lot of work to do if they want to be in the media center market.

I thought that at first too, but then I remembered this article: http://paulirish.com/2011/browser-market-pollution-iex-is-the-new-ie6/

Even with forced updates, the way IE is designed will not make things easier.

Products like Windows and Office have a lifecycle policy that typically runs 10+ years because that’s what these organizations need. As part of Windows, IE honors that 10+ year commitment.
~Dean Hachamovitch, IE Corporate VP

Basically, this means not only will you be supporting not only Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and IE, but the previous 9 versions of IE as well, all of which attempt backwards-compatibility and fail. Quoting the article I posted above:

The problem percolates when you come to terms with the fact that many of these modes are not the same as the original browser. For example:
IE8's IE7 mode: adds sessionStorage & localStorage, false positives on a feature test for the hashchange event, mishandles rowspan, and some other event and attribute differences.
IE9's IE8 mode: intermittently false positives on a feature test for inline SVG. Renders CSS differently than true IE8, and is crashier than the real one.

This thing has 8 memory slots? It's about time, honestly. Since the 9xx series, the supported motherboards only have four RAM slots, which was a deal-breaker for me. I have 6x4gb sticks in my core i7 950 box (which turned out to be a little overkill for that processor), but the i7 3600k didn't support the amount of RAM I needed for the price. My choices were literally either: not enough CPU, or not enough RAM.

Did it mention anywhere how the memory slots will be setup? Will be it dual-channel, or a fancy new quad-channel?

Sorry about the wall of text... I'm new to slashdot posting and it seemed to have killed my formatting.

If you're going to be learning it, may as well learn it the correct way. CentOS (short for Community ENTerprise OS) is great for servers, and LAMP on red-hat based systems takes about two minutes to install and configure. Any Linux distro will be hard to learn at first, and CentOS isn't any harder than the other big names. Keep this in mind as you struggle through learning the command prompt. If you end up liking CentOS, you could try Fedora for a workstation to really lock down the Linux essentials. If you end up hating CentOS, you could try Ubuntu. Which brings me to the "avoids CLI" comment. While GUIs are nice and all, honestly, the CLI is much simpler. Even if you don't know what you're doing yet, you can copy-paste commands from guides and get things setup rather quickly. I'm not sure I've ever setup much of anything in Linux without use of the CLI. To give you an example of CentOS installing a LAMP server using YUM (package manager), you would type this at the command line: yum install httpd mysql mysql-server php php-mysql Now you have Apache, MySQL, and PHP all installed. If you want phpmyadmin, just throw "phpmyadmin" to the end of that line. If you really want to avoid the CLI, you can install "webmin" as well. It's worth looking into, at least: http://www.webmin.com/demo.html And then to start the services: service httpd start service mysqld start If you want these services to run every time at boot: chkconfig httpd on chkconfig mysqld on Everything will be running, and will startup with reboots. Your website will be located at /var/www/html and directory read/write permissions should be set to the new user, "Apache". See how short and simple that was from the CLI? It was five commands! Anyway, I digress... Some people have suggested Ubuntu, but Ubuntu isn't a server distro. It will work, but if you want to run a stable server from a Debian standpoint, you would probably use the original: Debian. I don't recommend this, however, because Debian can be a PITA, if memory serves correctly. A lot of people out there will try to tell you that Ubuntu can be, and is, used for servers. Well, it's true. Anything can be used for a server, and there are quite a few Ubuntu servers out there, but that doesn't mean it's right. I mean, deep-fried Twinkies are still food, but that doesn't make them /proper/ food. If all this distro talk is going a little over your head, I wrote an article a while back as part of a series I never finished, introducing people to Linux. It's short, but you may find this section useful: http://drprofessor.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151:a-brief-history-of-linux-and-distros&catid=50:linux and this one, too, if you want to know more about the directory structure differences between Linux and Windows: http://drprofessor.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152%3Adirectory-structure&catid=50%3Alinux&Itemid=449