Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Lycoris Linux at ExtremeTech 360

Posted by Hemos from the looking-closely-at-it dept.
Eugenia writes "Most of you probably remember Redmond Linux, the user-friendly distro that tried to duplicate the familiar WindowsXP UI feel under Linux. Well, there is no more Redmond Linux. The company recently renamed the product "Lycoris Desktop/LX". ExtremeTech features today a very favorable review of the distro, includes screenshots and information on the installation, network setup, desktop environment etc."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lycoris Linux at ExtremeTech More

Lycoris Linux at ExtremeTech

Comments Filter:

  • one more time (Score:1, Troll)

    by eaddict ( 148006 )
    Please tell me why I would want something to look like an MS product?
    • This seems like a distro that caters to Windoze users who want to try out/transition over to Linux. It's the same principle as KDE in a sense, make it familiar and easy to pick up on.

    • Re:one more time (Score:2, Insightful)

      by necr0m ( 449388 )
      You may not want anything to look like an MS product, but that's what is going to sell Linux to the masses. The more familiar seeming and friendly looking the better.
    • ...or should look like the product MS copied it from...

      However I'm firmly against this brainless copying and re-implementing of prior art, you might consider mimicking a competetive product to ease migration for existing users towards your product. I'm not sure however if this is/was Redmond Linux' drive.

    • Re:one more time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OzPhIsH ( 560038 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:38AM (#3070035) Journal
      Well maybe YOU wouldn't want something to look like a MicroSoft product, and maybe I wouldn't want it to look an MS product either, but I think, since this is being marketed as desktop, the goal here is to make it so average joe user can feel comfortable using it. Like it or not, people are comfortable with Microsoft. For most, that's all they have known. People are going to be skeptical about completly chaging the way their computer looks and feels. If linux is ever going to take over the desktop market, its going to be gradual. I say go ahead and make it look like windows. As long there are still all the bells and whistles for the power users its no big deal. This is like a 'gateway' linux. Draw people in with a familiar look and feel, and eventually, when they have a taste of the true power of Linux, they wont go back to Windows.

      • Re:one more time (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MaxVlast ( 103795 ) <maximNO@SPAMsla.to> on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @01:06PM (#3071002) Homepage
        I agree with your sentiment, but this thing doesn't look at all like windows. The default desktop background looks like windows, after that, it's just another distribution with one of the Linux desktops on it. Nothing new, nothing startlingly "like-MS."

        Judging from the review, the best feature is that it works. The reviewer seems accustomed to Linux distros that fall apart when they're used. Printing sucking, no spell checkers available, difficult-to-install tarballs (I'm not clear on how he found that simpler, but, whatever.)

        Making something simpler to use and less broken out of the box is a worthy goal Making things look like things that they are not is not a worthy goal. As I've found myself posting several times over the past couple of days, making something look like something whose functionality it poorly copies is a worse sin than making it look completely alien. If a user sees something, he brings a large set of expectations of behavior with that. When the look-alike doesn't function like he expects it to, he becomes frustrated and rejects it more completely than he would reject something that looked new. I've seen it happen plenty, and it's a foolhardy path down which we travel if this becomes the custom.
    • Please tell me why I would want something to look like an MS product?

      I don't think you would, or that you should, but millions of people are used to the way MS products look, so it's not surprising to see that there's a niche for people who are used to Windows but would like to try out this LUNIX thing. Most existing Linux users probably got there from Windows, originally, even those of us who also programmed Solaris and HP-UX for a living.

      There are also aspects of the user interface that Microsoft has gotten right. Having a uniform standard for clipboard editing is good, as is having (fairly) common standards for menu access keypresses and even for keyboard shortcuts.

  • Funny... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by L-Wave ( 515413 )
    I think its funny how linux wants to be so "different" but yet tries to hard to resemble other platforms (apple via the acqua theme(s), windows via this and other windowish themes) anyways, thats my two cents. =)

    • Re:Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:36AM (#3070023) Homepage
      I think its funny how linux wants to be so "different" but yet tries to hard to resemble other platforms

      Though I get your general point, 'Linux' wants nothing. This particular distribution of Linux wants it, and so do its target users.

      Another distro, say Debian, can put together something completely different and yet still be a Linux system.

      Cheers,
      Ian

      • Though I get your general point, 'Linux' wants nothing.

        There is a small mistake in your statement: Linux wants more users! There are two ways of creating market share: "evangelize and no compromise" (ie: RMS) or "integrate and migrate" (ie: MdI).
    • The different here would be no licensing costs, open standards, full source, etc.

      It does seem like a lot of work but it does help transistion a lot of people over. It what it takes to get my wife moved over. She wouldn't move if she wasn't comfortable and could do all the things she wants to do. I personally have been happy with blackbox but everybody has their own opinion.

  • Meeting the needs of consumers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Andrew Coles ( 546117 ) <[andrew_coles] [at] [yahoo.co.uk]> on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:31AM (#3070002)
    Looks good, anything which convinces consumers 'it's not all that different to use' can hardly be a bad thing IMO.

    A wise man once said 'People have an irrational like of rubbish'. Hence Windows is very popular. So if Lycoris can get people to transfer onto Linux by making it 'just like Windows' and then gradually point out its other benefits it should make good progress in the Linux desktop market.

  • Ironic (Score:3, Funny)

    by larien ( 5608 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:32AM (#3070007) Homepage Journal
    The first thing I noticed about the web page was that the banner ad was for Windows XP...

  • Personally (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tanaraus ( 464965 )
    It seems that more and more, Microsoft is trying to make their products more stable and Linux is trying to make their products more flashy like Windows. If this continues, Linux and Windows will essentially become the same operating system except for the much larger budget of Microsoft. Linux remains a viable option because of what it offers that windows doesn't (increased stability, better environment for development [its also free, but i'm sure that most normal people don't pay for windows either -.-]).

    IMHO, Linux will dig its own grave by developing the shiny things that windows has instead of further strengthening its own unique aspects. [The grass is always greener on the other side]
    • While I agree with you about Linux digging it's own grave, I must say that Microsoft will never produce a stable operating system. They always incorporate their other product's into the operating system, and that intern always creates more problems and security issues. Until they change their idea of one HUGE monolithic operating system that does everything, they will not produce a stable operating system, and they would still have other things to do.
    • Nah... I disagree. What will ultimately "make or break" Linux is the overall quality of the apps. Short of Linus Torvalds and company suddenly deciding to churn out slop code, the core of Linux will remain quite solid and stable.

      The OS itself isn't really the issue. It's already built on a solid foundation that other commercial OS's (MS, ahem...) are working quickly to emulate, due to their relatively poor initial choice for a foundation.

      What really gives Linux a "bad name" is the slew of half-complete apps that are thrown onto distro CDs, all in an attempt to offer "bigger, better, more!".

      Honestly, if you're a regular user of both Windows and Linux environments, count how many beta version of your Win apps you use, vs. beta versions of your Linux apps. I'm pretty confident you'll find at least 5x as many betas in use on Linux.

      Being largely freeware, Linux has issues with lots of unstable/incomplete code floating around. (Often-times, code which has been abandoned - in the hopes that some other brave soul will pick up the source and continue the project.)

      Distros like this one are sorely needed, because they weeded out most of the garbage, and only installed the apps that don't bomb too often and make the whole OS look bad.

  • Creativity = 0 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by storem ( 117912 )
    Since when is it about copying stuff? Nowadays it seems that re-implementing others' ideas is the way to go. Ximian didn't invent Evolution, it copied the Outlook (sole decent MS product, hmm, maybe not) application. .NET Framework isn't a Miguel original. It's an MS invention! Where did all creativity go? Can we still come up with new things?
    • Everything that can been invented, has been. Or at least thought of :)

    • Ximian didn't invent Evolution, it copied the Outlook (sole decent MS product, hmm, maybe not) application. .NET Framework isn't a Miguel original. It's an MS invention! Where did all creativity go?

      RMS didn't invent GNU, it copied the UNIX (sole decent Lucent product at the time, hmm, maybe not) system. Selling a stable OS to home users isn't an MS original, or even an Apple original. It's a Mandrake innovation! Where did all creativity go?

      The innovation comes from the added freedom.

    • Re:Creativity = 0 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by segmond ( 34052 )
      it take skills to copy, and sometimes copying is the way to go. look at the japanese, they didn't come up with ideas when electronics where out, they copied ideas, perfected it and that's how they are leading. perhaps this is what will work for us.

  • One of my biggest pet peeves about Linux was that it was always a bear to configure + use. Sure, the command line is useful sometimes - but usually not. KDE + Gnome have come a long way towards putting a decent UI on top of the kernel, and now the user experience is much better. Lycoris goes a step further - there's something to be said for a distro that looks + acts a lot like windows. People who don't know computers (the suits, mostly) are afraid of them. They know Windows, and they're comfortable with it. Give them something that looks + acts like Windows, and they have a much easier time accepting it than something that looks nothing like Windows. While some might complain that it's selling out/pandering to the Windows crowd, I think this distro (if marketed properly) could make some significant inroads into Windoze-land.
    • I agree. There are all kinds of distros out there, for different kinds of people. That is the (sometimes overwhelming) beauty of Linux. I think Lycoris has achieved something that Lindows hasn't, with its attempt at creating a Windows/Linux hybrid: create a real Linux distro that will make Windows user feel at home, without compromising some basic principles (i.e. you have to login as Root: what the hell were they thinking?).

      Now all Lycoris needs is a reasonable marketing budget, and it has the opportunity to chip away some of Windows' user base. Which is the important thing, folks...by any means necessary.
    • I am actually thinking about trying this distro. Red Hat 7.1 will nt completely install on my system out of the box. I have to install the basics and go back and configure the the graphics after figuring out why it's not working. I would be willing to pay $40.00 to get a stable distro that install the first time.
  • I'm not sure how they are expecting to justify $30 for this product. The review states something about "making the networking easier". I didn't realize this was a problem in linux.? Maybe the wallpaper, icons and docs I could see, but I think the price is a little bit too much for the services rendered. The review looks like it's trying to sell the product rather than tell me why it's something I need to have.
    • Here's a list of what you're paying $30 for:

      1. A premade CD that you can just pop into your drive instead of trying to do something "weird", like burning a distro set or doing an FTP install. (FTP? What's that?)
      2. A paper copy of an installation manual. Nothing like getting confused in the middle of an installation and not having another machine handy for web access.
      3. Sixty days of tech support. This is the one huge advantage that Microsoft generally has, so providing solid support for linux is a big step in the right direction.
    • Well, considering even "average Joe" has a hard time networking his computer - I think this is a good thing.

      Explaining to a newbie that there is no Network Neighborhood confuses alot of people. If anything it'll make a transition easier.

    • Also remember that their target audience may be predisposed to equate FREE with CRAP. It's weird, but would you want to use a bike that some guys are giving away for free, and that they made in their spare time? True, those in /. community understand that a lot of hard work goes into the different distro's, but my brother sure doesn't.
    • I've installed and used Lycoris (and quite a few other distros). I didn't pay a dime. I downloaded the ISOs from their site. Not only was that [essentially] free, but they support rsync. The ISO was compressed in transit. That rocks.

      Anyway, the distro is really quite nice. You just run the installer, and it takes care of the details. You need to add a user (or users) and a printer, but while you're doing that the pakcages are being installed in the background. Keeping with the Calderalike intaller, you play solitare until the install is finished.

      It starts up with a nice, friendly interface. I set some of my windows-only cow orkers on it, and they were able to Get Stuff Done with little to no problem. Wine is pre-configured and starts up windows programs with just a click. The network browser works on a windows network with little problem. About everything just works.

      For me, it's a bit too sugar coated - but it's certainly acceptable. If I were going to deploy linux workstations today, replacing all of our windows machines, I would use Lycoris. It's the distro you give to people who aren't already into linux, and people that don't really *want* to get deep into linux.

      They actually provide remote tech support for a reasonable fee, too (I'm not sure if it's via vnc, ssh, or something their own). It's really well thought-out and well implemented. The problem will be getting it sold and installed in enough places to keep them around. If they market it right, I don't see why that'll be a problem.

  • It Just works! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DCram ( 459805 )
    Good reviews like this one are going to make those people who are on the fence take a closer look. The "it just works" comment is going to grab at those who are afraid that the OS is just to hard to config for everyday users.

    Some people feel safe with the MS feel, but thats all it is a feel. Now people might feel safe with the MS feel and the raw nut of the OS.

    -- Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
  • The point of making it look more like 'that other OS' is so a newbie user will feel more at home using it. i mean really, macos and win* aren't that 'different' as far as the actual desktop is used. the main difference is the menu systems used to load programs/config/etc.

    people want linux to be more mainstream, guess what, it needs to act more like what people are used to. do we rip a hole in nintendo for featuring analog controllers just like sony did? it's about convenience. get over it.

    • I would be happy to have a distro that install correctly out of the box. Red Hat 7.1 doesn't install properly out of the box for me. The graphic setup doesn't work. If this distro does, and if it saves me the time and hassle, I would be willing to pay $40 to get the pro version.

  • Just KDE... (Score:3, Funny)

    by srichman ( 231122 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:41AM (#3070044)
    ...the user-friendly distro that tried to duplicate the familiar WindowsXP UI feel under Linux...
    Well, I don't have Lycoris in front of me to feel with my own two hands, but from the screenshots it's "feeling" a lot like KDE with a cloud wallpaper.
  • Going from one controversial name to another. I bet Lycos just LOVES their new name! :)

  • Too good to be true for Linux newbies? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 2Flower ( 216318 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:48AM (#3070079) Homepage

    This could be what we need to migrate linux newbies away from Windows... if it delivers on all the promises.

    Example. I am a Win95 trained junkie. Certainly not a clueless one who just uses it to e-mail grandman, but my sumo was insufficent to deal with Linux. Last year, at the advice of a friend, I got a second hard drive and installed Debian onto it alongside my Windows disk. Configuration was a nightmare; it took multiple visits by my Linux guru uncle to get the networking going, THEN we had to try and get Xwindows to deal with my video card, and we never got sound to work properly. In the end, the wholly alien system and configuration woes (try as I might, I couldn't get package manager tamed) led me to disuse the Linux side of my computer, and eventually format over the disk so I could have more Win 9x storage.

    But this... this could be what I want. Something that's simple without sacrificing power. It doesn't have to clone windows as long as it's not like herding cats trying to get the thing to work properly. Every feature I could want -- autodetecting of video and sound, installation of various key applications, graphical frontend for nearly everything you could need to do -- is here.

    So what's the catch? Has anybody worked with this thing? A second opinion is always key. Does it have weaknesses, stumbling blocks that would leave a newbie floundering around in icy water without a life preserver? I might very well join the Linux hordes if this distro meets my needs in a fairly comfortable manner.

    • Re:Too good to be true for Linux newbies? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      For $30? Just go for it. Be our second opinion! Don't fear change!
    • No offense to the Debian folks but Debian is not for beginners... You should give the latest from either Redhat, Suse or Mandrake a try. Mandrake in particular is ridiculously easy to setup. Lycoris Linux may also be good but I haven't tried it out yet. In other words, don't judge Linux by just one of less-newbie-friendly distributions like Debian.
    • I got my brother started on Redmond Linux on a P2/266 just before they changed their name. (Yes, I sprang for the $30. fsking non-existent broadband options.) Installation was a breeze, even for him, and his transition from the Windows UI to the modified KDE took very little time. And once I added StarOffice, he didn't need to go back. I'm slowly pushing him towards increased use of the CLI, and eventually to Debian, but Redmond Linux has been a good first step so far.

      Reading these comments here, I'm not surprised to see a few whiny comments ("We don't want it to look like MS!"), but I *am* surprised to see so much feedback for "starter" distros (like Mandrake, RH, or Redmond). Good. We mustn't alienate as we conquer.

      P.S. Why'd they change to "Lycoris"? Someone needs to restore some dignity to the Redmond name. Besides, "Lycoris" sounds like a disease. ("I'm sorry, Johnny, but you have lycoris. You have six weeks to live." "Gosh, Doc, what do I tell my family?")
      • ...P.S. Why'd they change to "Lycoris"? Someone needs to restore some dignity to the Redmond name. Besides, "Lycoris" sounds like a disease. ("I'm sorry, Johnny, but you have lycoris. You have six weeks to live." "Gosh, Doc, what do I tell my family?")
        Well, maybe you pronounce it like licorice, to imply that it's sweet, but not to everyone's taste. That way it would also rhyme with clitoris. I feel there must be a limerick to be got out of this situation.
    • The only catch to this, any Linux distro really, is that it's not like Windows. If you spend your hard earned cash on it and you don't like it, you've only spent $29, unlike windows where you would have spent well over $100! ;-)

      Seriously, with a pricetag like that, it sure isn't much of a risk. Why not just give it a try?

    • Re:Too good to be true for Linux newbies? (Score:4, Funny)

      by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @12:26PM (#3070758)
      ...but my sumo was insufficent to deal with Linux

      Perhaps you should have tried to "deal" with Linux yourself, instead of hiring a sumo to do it for you.

      "Spare some salt, tubby?" --Homer

    • Not to start a holy ware, but...

      No friend should recommend debian to a complete unix/linux newbie. It errs on the side of making no decisions for the user... which can be problematic.

      I would have recommended something like SuSE or Mandrake which have excellent installs and configure everything for you. However, they also allow you to "mature" into not having to use the configuration tools if you don't want to.

    • So, if I get this right, you (at least partly) insult this distro for not accomplishing it's goal and then ask if anyone's tried it? You know, you COULD actually try it out before you start making assumptions about it.

  • Finally, a distro that gets it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joshv ( 13017 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:55AM (#3070117)
    One of the key points the reviewer makes is that this distro does not take the 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach to software it includes. It only includes apps and libraries that are known to work, and work in combination.

    Some people might like that other distros give you the option of 5 different CD players, some of which may be in beta, or pre-beta - but most people just want a CD player that works. Ditto with other application categories. It's better to include solid software that is known to work, but might not have every last bell and whistle.

    -josh
    • One of the key points the reviewer makes is that this distro does not take the 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach to software it includes. It only includes apps and libraries that are known to work, and work in combination.

      One of the great things about Linux is that there is so much good software available for Free on the net. No matter how much the distributors cram into their packages, they will always miss some of the more obscure applications I might like to use. Therefore, even as a 'power user' I find this approach much more sensible.

    • Some people might like that other distros give you the option of 5 different CD players, some of which may be in beta, or pre-beta - but most people just want a CD player that works.
      But any user who has used Linux in the past will want his favourite CD player. Hence the need to include all five.
    • Some people might like that other distros give you the option of 5 different CD players, some of which may be in beta, or pre-beta - but most people just want a CD player that works.
      But what's the point of that? If you want to experiment with different CD players, it makes more sense to search rpmfind and freshmeat, to say nothing of Sourceforge. The whole point of a distro is to provide you with a basic configuration. There's no reason for the distro to provide you with a zillion options. You get those anyway, just by joining the Linux community.

      Which actually supports your basic point. The distro builder's job is to make decisions about what the system should look like, not duck responsibility by throwing in the kitchen sink. As you say, Lycrois seems to get it.

      I have a Linux test box with a fairly jumbled setup I've been meaning to reinstall from scratch. Been dithering between Mandrake, Power Linux, and our old friend RH. But now I'm convinced Lycrois deserves a look. If even the network setup works as advertised, the distro will have proved its worth to me.

  • Gripe all you want (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RembrandtX ( 240864 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @10:57AM (#3070129) Homepage Journal
    you silly naysayers:
    'Why do I wan't an operating system that looks like windows?' or 'where do they get off charging $30?' but this has got me to stand up and look.

    I use free bsd/linux for servers .. and in my opinion .. nothing beats em. But linux on the desktop has always been .. lacking .. for the practical world.

    the world that NEEDS photoshop, because its what all your business contacts use .. the folks that NEED visual interdev cause your office is in bed with M$.

    THIS .. in MHO .. is a step in the right direction if all hales as they have reported. I'm willing to spend $30 to find out .. I have been holding off on running a non MS workstation because wine isnt very stable on either of my server boxes. [just a small segway, sometimes people are very suspicious of free things, and in America at least, something with a price tag hold value with the consumer .. seems silly, but we're programmed that way here from birth.]

    i especially like the sound of the installer .. sure .. I breathe ozone for breakfast, but my 80 year old mom can't even install windows - who here thinks she can install mandrake ?

    The fact that the 2 main kicks in the article are about its web-browser and e-mail warms my heart, since this is what the average joe in the world uses their computer for anyways. Appealing to the folks who are afraid of anything new is a good step i think.

    As for who would want a desktop that looks like windows ? How about every existing customer who currently USES windows ? Folks who 'poo-poo'the windows look and feel should get off their college-I-need-a-crusade-I-will-commit-myself-to-t he-underdog outlook, and take a look at the world around you.

    Most people out of college (lets say .. conservativly 70%) are sheep, they don't want to learn new things.. they want the world to be comfortable and safe, and to act how they already know it to act. These are not the people who install a new operating system "just-to-see" these are folks that run a p200 into the ground becuase to them its just another 'magic box' that gets them e-mail.

    so anything that can get the mass market less afraid is a victory in my opinion.

    • Re:Gripe all you want (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gergi ( 220700 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @11:17AM (#3070244)
      i especially like the sound of the installer .. sure .. I breathe ozone for breakfast, but my 80 year old mom can't even install windows - who here thinks she can install mandrake ?

      i think you'll find mandrake is MUCH easier to install than windows. most people just assume the installer is more difficult because they have never actually installed windows... it just came pre-installed.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Everything that you say here is true. Windows installs have gotten easier, especially in the NT line. All the same things are true of a modern Linux install. Red Hat has has the kick start system for unattended installs since at least 1996.

          For attended installs, I think that recent Mandrake installs are pretty comparable to a Windows XP installation and a bit easier than a win2k install (the blue screen partition tool in win2k just sucks). And pretty much anything is better than doing a Windows 9x install, I hate those with a passion.

        • Re:Gripe all you want (Score:2, Insightful)

          by FPhlyer ( 14433 )
          Okay: one thing does it for me. WinNT/2k/XP allows you to create unattended setup answer files. Its a little feature, but saves me ages. I have a handy CD with a few answer files on it, along with the Win2k setup stuff, and man o man does it make a big difference. Pop in the CD, boot the machine, walk away, come back in 30-45 minutes with a working machine, on the network, with the right drivers, printers, and applications ready to go. Combined with a few other Win2k features it means I can bring a new user online in less than 1 hr.

          I know Mandrake and RedHat allow you to do a similar feature. In Mandrake, you can create a special boot floppy at the end of the install that will allow you to perform the same installation steps on a different machine. Mandrake also automagically creates a "replay_install.img" disk image in the /root directory from which you can create a boot floppy to do this later.
          You are right about the bad news with disk cloning software. We got away with it for years here where I work (cloning WinNT) because our hardware has been kept extremely standardized. But now that we are bringing in new hardware, cloning is less of an option.


      • As a Windows user, I object to your assumption that I have never installed the OS!

        As a matter of fact, I have to RE-install it every month or so!

        The MS Support Tech told me that's what I should do.
    • than windows (98SE, 2K, XP)

      & the whole installer works without having to reboot half a dozen times like the Windows installer does.

      You just boot the CD, click ok about 20 times or somthing, then it reboots & you are on the desktop with everything configured.

      Well that's a bit simplified, but you know what I mean.
    • The fact that the 2 main kicks in the article are about its web-browser and e-mail warms my heart, since this is what the average joe in the world uses their computer for anyways.

      Unfortunately, another thing the average joe windows user wants it to watch (mostly) stupid movies that generally come in quicktime/asx format, and play (mostly) stupid flash games.

      I think the biggest area where Linux lacks desktop applications is multimedia. It's not that there aren't any good applications - I get by quite well with xmms, realplayer for Linux, and XMovie for mpegs - but too much content is in proprietary formats that simply can't be used on Linux, and this is generally the more popular content.

  • Why this is an excellent idea... (Score:4, Informative)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @11:08AM (#3070191) Journal
    The biggest obstacle I faced in changing an office full of non-tech people from Windows/Office to Linux was training time. Despite the cost of Windows, Office, Project, Exchange seats, etc. it was nothing compared to the loss of time/productivity/money retraining them would have. Hell, just the 3-button mouse causes dozens of phone calls from Windows end-users!

    Making the tools similar to what they are used to will get rid of most of that problem.

    The big benefits come to an office with what ISN'T included in this package -- BSODs, Fatal Exceptions, and 5x-daily reboots.

    It took me two years, but eventually I had trained most people in the office to accept the fact that Excel, IE and Word crashed on a regular basis. No, it was not their fault. Reboot and get on with life.

    The final benefit was the statement "it is pure Linux in there".

    Power to those that know how to find/use it. Functionality to those that don't.
  • From all appearances it would seem to be able to pass the 'wife test'. That is, can she intuitively find what she wants and enjoy her media and surfing? While the purists might balk at a distribution that makes Linux look more like Windows, I offer nothing but praise. If more people are willing to try a distribution of linux that has a more familiar feel to them and uses a structure they understand, then I consider that to be a victory. It's still one less Windows machine in the wild no matter how you count it. While I prefer my X with Gnome a la Blackbox, I applaud the efforts of groups to create a nice middle of the road solution for those that don't want or need to to know how the internals work. I think this is an area that seems to be a much contested battlefield and ideal here on /. where people tend to use their desktop and OS to form a sense of identity. However, we must remember the vast majority of corporate and home users (think of your seceretary, or execs) can not and will not be swayed into trying anything new as long it requires a steep learning curve from what they use every day.

    my $.02

  • Don't be a zealot, guys. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VPN3000 ( 561717 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @11:23AM (#3070273)
    After reading the comments in this thread so far, I am a little ashamed of most of you. Can we let go the days where every Linux user has this attitude of learning the OS inside and out? Give me a break, this distribution looks great for joe-bob computer user who would like an alternative to Windows.

    A distribution like this can be installed in an office enviroment. Think about it, if you have a small company with little money to spare on software licenses, for $30 you can have a complete turn-key workstation solution for everyone. Just don't give the receptionist root!

    Anyway, can we please demonstrate more maturity and wisdom by not instantly bashing a distro that tries to attract new people? These newbies aren't stupid, they just don't want to spend 2 weeks setting up and tweaking out their first linux box. They don't have geek jobs and they make more money being doctors, lawyers, etc. :-)

    Victor

  • Explained.... (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by ishark ( 245915 )
    The default Web browser after the base installation is Mozilla 9.7.

    Ok, now we know that this review was leaked from the future.

    Far future.

    EXTREMELY far future, I'd say :)

  • Oh, here it comes. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DohDamit ( 549317 )
    Let's see...I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there's two smart-ass responses to this, both of them growing from the same condescending, bitterly hermitic, overzealous group of diehard(read fanboy) linux lovers who can't possibly see that the only thing that can bring Windows down(TM) is to BRING PEOPLE FROM WINDOWS TO LINUX.

    No, its not ironic that a linux distro would look like Windows. No, your operating system does not make up for your lack of length. Yes, you do want people to actively explore this option. Unless of course, you like being a bitter little man.

    The only way I will ever move the wife and kiddies over to Linux is if it makes sense. It does not make sense to move them to a clusterfcked environment where every dork in a closet wants everyone else to absorb his particular brand of dystopia. It would make sense to move them to a user-friendly, elegant, secure environment where I can turn off options that would let them break things. This is where something that looks and feels like what the wifage and kiddies are used to would come in handy.
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but the average windows users this appears to be targeting would seem to be the people least likely to use it. Most of your home users are still running the same version of windows that was on their gateway/dell when they bought it. As far as they're concerned, windows came free with the computer (most people don't know about 'windows tax' and whatnot). So, for the most part, telling them that they can get this great product which looks exactly like what they use now, behaves almost identically, and only costs them $30 (or $40 to have source code that they'll never use) seems rather pointless. Why would anyone pay money for something they already have? And those of us who use linux already aren't likely to dole out $40 for the source to a customized window manager. How are we to convince people to switch to free software when we're charging them for it?
    • Actually, they're targeting ME. I've been using Linux since 95 or so and loving it, but this sounds like what I've been looking for. I'm a little tired of the constant tinkering that the typical distro entails, and what distro DOESN'T sell for at least $30? Sounds like this one can update on-the-fly like the old TurboLinux, which is great as well. Yahooskies!

  • WINE - for the record (Score:2, Informative)

    by subgeek ( 263292 )
    Wine (WINdows Emulator, which substitutes Unix or X11 calls for Windows API calls, allowing Windows 3.1 and Win32 programs to run) is also included in the distribution and installs automatically by default with no need for user configuration.

    Just for the record, Wine Is Not an Emulator!

    I just had to put that out there so anyone unfamiliar with WINE who read the article didn't learn it the wrong way. The WINE folk [winehq.org] are clear that they like the idea of "Windows Compatability Layer" much better than "Windows Emulator."
    • What is the difference between a compatibility layer and an emulator? Can you name an emulator that is fundamentally different from WINE in this sense? Or is the name WINE just a silly hacker abbrev in the spirit of GNU, LAME and others?
  • It's called MacOS X. No matter how many distros I have installed and tested (RedHat, Debian, Redmond and Mandrake), I would rather have my mom use MacOS X than Linux as her desktop. The Linux desktop just doesn't look "polished", they look like what they are, cobbled together apps forced to get along. There is something to be said for one company building the whole system versus a ragtag group of dedicated programmers from all over the world.

    Mom will get MacOS X, my server will get Linux or if I am really nice, BSD.

  • This post had me really excited for a moment, right after I saw the topic. Unfortunately, my lysdexia was harassing me, and my hopes of a Clitoris Linux have yet again become a dream.
  • Window XP is advertised with the implication that once I installed the OS, I can immediatly use my Cd burner. Something I still have problems with in my Suse 7.2 distro.
    They didn't address that in the article, but if I could install it and have evrything working, including the cd burner, I'd go out a buy a copy today.
    I purchess all my distro these days. what better way to support Linux development?

  • Easy install/nice interface is all fine and good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheRealFixer ( 552803 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @02:03PM (#3071432)

    But until software developers (specifically free software developers) catch on and learn that new users and people switching to Linux are not going to want to compile every single app, and start providing more binaries, Linux will be a tough switch for the new user.

    I'm a long time Windows and Mac user, who recently bought Mandrake 8.1 after I got sick of Windows. Installed beautifully. I love KDE. Plug and Play actually works...

    Then I started downloading some usefull apps that I wanted. They were all source. NONE of them would compile on my machine with the instructions that the developer provided. I'm not a computer newbie. I even understand some programming. But I'm not a C expert. Something that most developers seem to think everyone is.

    So, this is a message to all you Linux developers, building cool little apps for people to use: We don't all have your development machines, with every single library in existance. You want your software to really catch on and help make Linux attractive to new people? Provide binaries that are easy to install.

  • My own experience with Desktop/lx (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BlackHawk ( 15529 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2002 @02:47PM (#3071834) Journal

    I am an Unbeliever, by nature. Tell me that a distro is easy to use, and I will ask you what your biases are that lead you to make such a statement.

    SO I ordered a CD of Desktop/lx to run my own tests. I built a box from parts, just so I could have something to test it on. And then I ran my own little lab using Mandrake 8.1, Windows 2000 Professional, and Desktop/lx.

    The machine is this: Abit SL6 motherboard, Intel Pentium 4 1GHz processor, NetGear FA310tx NIC, ATI Rage128 Pro AGP card, Maxtor DiamondMax 30GB HDD, a generic 1.44 floppy, HP cd12-series CD-RW. Total RAM: 384MB.

    The first install was Mandrake.It installed, but didn't recognize the card on installation. I got it working, but only in 16 color, 640x480 resolution. It did not recognize the VIA onboard sound, nor the CD burner. As an out-of-the-box install, it wouldn't have won any prizes. I purposely did not spend any time on it, as I was testing the distro's ability on a clean, simple install.

    Next, I tried Win2K, just to give myself a benchmark. After all, hardware manufacturers almost universally create their wares for the MS world. Surprisingly, the Win2K also did not handle the Rage128 correctly, leaving me with the job of downloading and installing the new driver. Same for the cd-burner. I have to say, I was pretty shocked. I expected the machine to install right away.

    The Lycoris distro happened to arrive in the mail that same day, so I blew away the partition for a third time and popped the disk in.

    Installation was a breeze. After answering a few questions, the file-copies started, leaving me with a Caldera-like configuration, answering network and user-creation questions. Having answered all those, I got to play solitaire for a bit. After the copying was finished, I started the X configuration. The card was recognized and configured on the first try with no input from me. After I rebooted the system, I was left with a KDE system which had been themed like Microsoft's XP. And here's where things got interesting.

    On the desktop was a cute little Network Browser icon. I clicked on it, largely to see how much it failed in my work environment, where I have Win2K servers and workstations, Linux servers and workstations, and Win98 laptops. The Win2K servers are running an Active Directory tree. The browser not only found them all and displayed them, I received access under my normal user account to all resources on the network. On the first try.

    All in all, I think this distro is one to watch...

    • The Win2K servers are running an Active Directory tree. The browser not only found them all and displayed them, I received access under my normal user account to all resources on the network. On the first try.
      Now that is impressive. I'm trying to think the last time I had an easy install of a network workstation. Still thinking...

      Pity there's no Netware support. Or is there?

  • I just downloaded the IS0 to see how what all the hype was about. I popped in the CD, it showed a nice graphical installer and then the installer appears to try and config X automatically before even copying files to your drive. Needles to say, the X configuration was wrong, the screen was unreadable, so I couldn't try out the distro.
  • Didn't they see the ISOs for free here [planetmirror.com] among other mirrors?
  • hey, just wondering... does anyone know how they set up WINE in this distro? Am I to assume that if you try to run an .exe file from inside Linux, it would fire up WINE and try to run it? If so, I congratulate them. Getting WINE to run has been a bit of a black art, and if these guys figured out how to autoconfigure it on install, that would be a huge step forward for Linux.

    We can talk all we want about how we want people to transition over from Windows, and I'm certain many would like to, but they are addicted to a specific windows program that isn't on Linux (perhaps a filesharing program, a game, Nandub, or some such thing). A working WINE would win over so many peeople to Linux that the effect could be huge. Linux advocates simply can't get in through their heads that you can't do everything in Linux that you can do in Windows. When they tell users the opposite and their lie is found out, it makes people bitter, turns them off, and makes them wonder what other lies are a part of standard Linux advocacy. WINE is the way to fix that. If we want to dramatically increase the Linux user base (and it's not obvious that we should) WINE is the answer. I'm glad this distro is taking it seriously, and I hope others do too.

  • I've installed this (actually, I installed the free Redmond Linux, the previous version), and it strikes me as just a little too user-friendly: it does not have gcc in the default install. Now, I installed it because I thought it would be a good way to get my feet wet in Linux for the first time. But I run Apache on Windows 2000, and without gcc, Apache cannot be made to run, and without gcc, gcc cannot be compiled to run on the system. What do you do with a machine that lacks a compiler and is too new to have binaries available? What do you do?

    I will only use it at length once it can do what Windows can do, for my only critical application (Apache).

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close