Lycoris Desktop/LX Review 237
JigSaw writes: "Lycoris Desktop/LX (formerly known as 'Redmond Linux') is viewed by many as the new big distribution in the "Linux on the Desktop" arena. OSNews features an extensive review of the latest Lycoris and outlines the good and the bad things of the distro. In short, Lycoris seems to suffer from the general GNU/Linux situation to not be ready to power a true desktop-oriented, easy to use distribution yet."
Heh, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just making another distro isn't enough to be "Linux's answer to the desktop." It'll require more products, more "wizbangs", easier installation, and general "user friendliness" on all aspects. I'd concentrate on more products, ensuring you can go seamlessly between Windows and Linux flawlessly (Word docs as a minor example), before making a distro to be the "answer."
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I guess it does make the transition from Windows to Linux a lot easier.
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
my $favorite_application;
Sorry, couldn't help it
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:1)
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:1)
Here [gnome.org] is a usability report from Gnome (which I think proves me right, as Gnome uses a very similar interface)
On an unrelated note, I thought "Redmond Linux" was a much better name, which would be easy to protect (as the company is located in Redmond)
Redmond (Score:2)
Yes, but even for all of the Windows-familiarity they have put into the product, they didn't want the product to be associated with a certain company, also located in Redmond.
I like the name. The "LX" trademark is just cool, blows "XP" right out of the water.
I agree mostly--only a fool copies Microsoft UI (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, there's a lot of bad decisions that one can make in interface design that are just plain stupid from a cognitive psychology standpoint and shouldn't be done in any interface on any platform in any circumstance. And microsoft is a frequent practitioner of this stupidity. Windows' Multi-row tabs are a perfect example, because they do not conform to the user expectation about how folder tabs are laid out: in a file cabinet, you do not have one folder tab above another and the visual search you do for a desired tab strictly on a horizontal plane. The even more confusing part about the multi-row tabs were that the widgets (i.e. the tabs) actually switch locations on screen, where the bottom tabs come to the top and vice-versa. Having widgets radically change their location on screen is a big no-no. In all fairness, Microsoft has recently been getting rid of the multi-row tabs, but why did it take them so long?
For years, usability experts have criticized Microsoft's UI shennanigans like multi-row tabs and Window-in-Window MDI, and Microsoft often does not make needed changes until 3-4 years later, if at all. Even if Microsoft gets rid of the bad design, 3rd party Windows application are by no means required to do this, and they often take even longer to purge their applications of Microsoft's bad UI than Microsoft.
There really is a double standard of design in the linux development community. If someone who knows nothing about OS design were to copy into the linux kernel a really stupid microsoft design that seriously compromised security and stability, something that OS development gurus and security experts have said for years should never be done, and do it all in the name of providing windows users with the same Blue Screens of Death and intrusions they're used to, they'd get burned at the stake with all the flames they'd get. If someone in the linux development community who knows almost nothing about interface design (which is really most of the linux development community) copies a microsoft design that seriously compromises usability and has been criticized for years by experts in the UI design field, they'd get a hearty pat by many in the linux community for "easing the migration for windows users".
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
Yep. Especially if you don't tell them they can customize everything about their desktop, because once they figure that out, there goes their productivity for at least a week.
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:1)
1. *click* er..
2. *moves mouse left*
3. *click*
4. go to 1
Yes and No (Score:2)
That being said, mimicking Windows because it's a nice clean interface isn't such a bad idea. Like everything else in building a good product, being a copycat isn't a bad policy. Users generally want these simple UI features, and not much more:
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
every have to deal with a whiner rebellion?
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
As a general rule, users don't like a lot of change. If you notice the evolution of Windows software, there has been no great revolution in UI in Windows until XP (and I'm NOT saying it's a good thing either or even a great revolution). The perfect UI has a great deal of consistency across applications, even when it sometimes doesn't make sense (the oddball selections buried under the Options menu, etc.).
Which is not to say that KDE or Gnome is terribly different from Windows, but perhaps just enough different that there are always going to be whiners about the look and feel.
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
Well there was that change from 3.1 to 4.0 (aka 95), but then they just coped and screamed. It is one thing when there is a big change, it is another when you have a bunch of prima donnas.
I don't even want to talk about the people who call up and ask "could you walk me through that again?" for the umpteenth time.
It's not the installation anymore (Score:1)
Wrong wrong wrong. It's the widgets. (Score:2)
It's simpler than even that (Score:3, Insightful)
DON'T SHOVEL LOADS OF IDENTICAL SOFTWARE ON!
The K menu on Lycoris is sanely organised and there's one of everything. If you look at your average dist, when a user fires up the brand new desktop they're greeted with a load of disordered crap in the menus, half of which sticks out like a sore thumb (GTK+/Qt mismatch... sigh I really wish we could standardise on one of these. Preferably Qt but then of course it's put out by an Evil Company (TM) nevermind the fact that it's GPL.) and the other half just doesn't work. That's not a great first impression to make. Just by sorting out the defaults on installation Lycoris has taken a huge step forward.
The one thing imho that Linux needs on the desktop is a more homogeneous feel. One desktop environment and one widget set. One administration package. I want to boot into a KDE only desktop, start up KControl and schedule some backups every weekend and select "Automatically install security updates every week", maybe set up some email and web accounts for the kids, set up my firewall to "Allow web server and email traffic", and set up a home LAN and share some files around. If I were an end user doing that I'd think "Holy shit I can't do THIS under Windows!"
Come on fellas, this can be done. I can write an
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
Linux has installation down pretty damn nicely, actually. At least from the RedHat and Mandrake camps, we now have installs that are EASIER than Windows. I haven't tried installing XP yet, but Red Hat 7.2's install is actually a lot easier than Win2k or WinME, IMHO.
However, on the other points, you're right. Linux still needs more desktop apps, and the desktop apps it does have still need just a little more work. That, and Linux could really use a few more Shiny Things (TM) for the desktop... like AA everywhere, and stupid animations and translucency in places it doesn't belong, etc. These things are largely just STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, but they have great geek "sex appeal," which helps put Linux on more geek desktops.
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
And I don't mean RPM vs. DEB either. How about a consistent file system layout and consistent installer UI so that the less tech-savvy crowd doesn't have to find an expert to hold their hand when they want to install those extra apps.
(Not that I think "linux" is an entity, nor that it owes me anything. I'm just suggesting that the original poster may have been talking about something other than OS installation.)
Christopher
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
An excellent point, and quite relevant. KDE does an alright job of this sort of thing with their RPM install program, and Red Carpet makes installing RPMs in Ximian's software "Channels" extremely easy, but I don't think either one goes far enough. However, given technologies like
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
Windows has such a thing?
Theoretically, a linux app install should be even easier than a Windows install. Put up a dialog that says "I'm going to install Turbo Super Mega Calc on your computer now. Is this OK?" [Yes] [No]
If yes, rpm -U TurboSuperMegaCalc-1.2.i386.rpm.
Done [OK]
Re:Heh, what did you expect? (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
..Uh, but there are far better native apps available for free.. Why would you ever want to run windows notepad or calculator? I understand the eventual goal of WINE to run all those exe's seamlessly, but why is WINE a nice addition in this distribution if it just runs simple programs that already have better native versions?
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
<shameless plug> (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
The Me Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I think both you and the reviewer are applying a fallacy I often see in online reviews and evaluations -- especially on Slashdot. I call it the Me Fallacy. This fallacy is the assumption that your own needs are the needs of the product's target audience. So you applaud and criticize when the product succeeds and fails to meet your needs -- even if that's not what the product is trying to do.
I see this in the review (which does make some good points) when it criticizes Lycoris for not providing development apps. This is an end user distro, for Pet's sake! Of course, a developer might want it anyway (I'm going to try it in the hope that it will integrate with my company's IPX network better than the others), but such a user is perfectly capable of downloading apps -- and is more interested in how well the distro accomodates third-party packages than what specific packages the distro provides.
Good old notepad (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I actually prefer calc.exe (scientific mode) to KCalc or xcalc, mainly because I've used it for a dozen years or more and I know how it works and all of the keyboard shortcuts. Why should I deprive myself of this adequate piece of software? I've got more important things to learn than another calculator program.
printer friendly (Score:1, Informative)
Its not even a unique distro (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally dont see the point.
I can see the lawsuits now! (Score:2)
It'll be suing someone for a change
I hate this litigous society
Basic LX version (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Basic LX version (Score:2, Informative)
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source [...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...]
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code [...]
So, you don't need to distribute the source with the binary, but you do need to make it available.
Re:Basic LX version (Score:2)
That isn't a violation - the source just has to be available, for a reasonable amount. Several good comments were posted in the Shawn Gordon story - see here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org] and, of course, here [gnu.org].
Re:Basic LX version (Score:4, Informative)
They don't have to ship the sources with the binaries; they're only violating the GPL if they refuse to provide the source code to a customer that requests it. They can even charge a fee for providing the source, and still not be in violation of the GPL. You can read the GPL here" [gnu.org].
Check it out.
Re:Basic LX version (Score:2)
Re:Basic LX version (Score:1)
Re:Basic LX version (Score:2)
Re:Basic LX version (Score:1)
"...any third party..." (Score:2)
In fact, you don't need to have the source available for everyone publicly - you can limit the source distribution to those who purchased the product from you.
Wrong. According to the GNU GPL [gnu.org], if you're going to satisfy section 3 by offering CDs via mail order, you must
review? where? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I hope that future versions of Lycoris will use a file automatically for their swap space instead of a real partition - in addition to the / partition. This will greatly simplify the installation process for many users and won't fragment their hard drives.
What is that supposed to mean?
Am I out of the loop or does linux support swap files (as opposed to partitions) now?
How much 'simpler' would it really make it anyway. It doensn't fragment the disk, put the swap at the end and be done with it.
It get's better:
It took 2 minutes to mount two FAT32 partitions (9 and 18 GB respectively), while the rest of the OS loading did not take more than 40 seconds. A shame really - I hope this (inconvenience mostly) will be fixed or altered to a faster algorithm.
I don't know what's wrong with the mounting issue, but what kind of faster algorithm is he talking about here?
</rant>
Pointer
Re:review? where? swapfile (Score:1)
Re:review? where? swapfile (Score:5, Informative)
Now I don't necessarily mean swap files directly supported by the kernel, but if you _really_ wanted to use a swap file instead couldn't you create a file, format it as a linux swap and then mount it as a loopback device?
Something like:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/swap
# mkswap
Then put an entry in
/swapfile swap swap defaults,loop 0 0
And finally:
# swapon
I just tried this on slackware 8.0 with kernel 2.4.18 and it works. I don't know if this is a "new feature" or anything but I'm pretty sure that as long as your kernel supports loopback devices then this would work.
Maybe someone with better kernel knowledge could provide some better insight.
P.S I still don't see why you would want to do this. Espcially considering that in any good install program geared towards end-users they would not have to worry about partitioning (and even if they did it seems to me like paritioning would still be easier than doing what I described above). At least I know that I would still prefer a swap partition as opposed to a file anyway...
--
Garett
Why you'd want to use a swap file (Score:2, Informative)
P.S I still don't see why you would want to do this.
Here's a case in point: whilst working in a physics laboratory, I set up machines with 128 MB RAM with two 128 MB swap partitions--this was the standard I'd been taught, and it had never failed me. One of the computers kept hanging whenever a user ran one of his simulation programs. It quickly became obvious that he needed far more memory & swap space. Rather than reformatting (since I was out of partition space), I created a new 512 MB swap file, and that solved his problem (course, buying extra RAM later on also helped, but in a university setting a swapfile is much easier to create than RAM is to buy).
Re:review? where? swapfile (Score:2)
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/swap
# mkswap
Then put an entry in
/swapfile swap swap defaults,loop 0 0
And finally:
# swapon
Ahh yes...
That should be entirely clear for all Windows users!
I see now.
people can't read man pages anymore! (Score:2)
mkswap sets up a Linux swap area on a device or in a file.
There's no need to do any loopback mount silliness. Also, this isn't unique to Linux -- both Solaris and Irix can swap to files. This is *nix, after all -- the "everything is a file (stream)" idea runs pretty deep.
Re:review? where? HERE (Score:1, Informative)
Of course and Linux supports swap in a file instead of a partition. What do you think the mkswap command can do?
>I don't know what's wrong with the mounting issue, but what kind of faster algorithm is he talking about here?
The FAT32 mounting is PAINFULLY slow for me too. Other distros do not have the particular problem. Therefore, it has to be something wrong with their code.
Re:review? where? (Score:1)
Re:review? where? (Score:2)
As far as the second issue, I have no clue how those fat32 mounts can cause such a slow issue. He is trying to look at it from an end user perspective, and this is exactly the sort of thought an end user would have. Likely the distro is doing something extra that is slow enough to block mounts, maybe some sort of indexing service or something. His statement about an algorithm is silly, but perhaps apt if the distro is doing something special at mount time that it could postpone to run in the background...
I know nothing about this distro and am completely uninterested, but I think his review was very good look from a user level perspective. Not big on techinical details, but the target audience of this distro isn't very technical...
Re:review? where? (Score:3, Interesting)
He is a she, and like all (ex-)BeOS users, Eugenia is obsessed with bootup speed, because BeOS booted in about 12 seconds on most machines (it actually booted in 8 seconds on my BeBox during the DR days). A small amount of tweaking got me a 15 second bootup time in Linux (from the GRUB prompt to my X session manager, xdm), and that includes SCSI initialization. The main rule is of course is to avoid anything that starts with a K!
However, in all my Linux years I have never ever waited *2 minutes* for a partition to mount. So either Eugenia's box is terribly slow, or something is very wrong with that Linux distro, or she's lying
-adnans
Re:review? where? (Score:3, Interesting)
>waited *2 minutes* for a partition to mount. So
>either Eugenia's box is terribly slow,
Dual PIII 450 Mhz, 512 MB of RAM. Lycoris is installed on a *fast* SCSI drive, while both the FAT32 partitions are on an also modern IDE drive.
> or something is very wrong with that Linux distro,
I read somewhere that their FAT32 code is still alpha. I am sure there is A LOT of room for improvement.
> or she's lying
You are very welcome to come and see it yourself if you are living in the Bay Area. You are warmly invited to our house and experience it yourself.
Re:review? where? (Score:1)
Yes, you are way out of the loop. But he is still full of it. Even on an NT box it is still best to make a seperate partition for your swap space. It tends to run faster that way. Same thing goes for linux. Plus, the swap partition is designed for well... swapping.
But as far as "can it be done" goes, yes it can. It has been an option now for as long as I can remember. Since the 2.x kernel at least. I remember doing it in Slackware 4.0. (And that came out years and years ago).
The solution here is to simply auto partition your drive. Do it all in the background. If someone wants to do it all themselves.. then that distro wouldn't be for them.. have them use RedHat.
And as far as "fragmenting" their hard drives... I am confused.. am I out of the loop here? I thought a fragmented drive was when files were not stored on concurrent parts of the drive. Silly me.
Re:review? where? (Score:1)
And moreover, how can someone who demonstrates such blatant arrogance and ignorance, get such high mods?
I totally agree with the review, to have a swap file instead of a partition totally makes sense for desktop installs, because you don't want to increase the number of primary partitions, which you have only 4 anyway.
Re:review? where? (Score:2)
Re:review? where? (Score:2)
Am I out of the loop or does linux support swap files (as opposed to partitions) now?
Both - you are out of the loop, and Linux has supported swap files (as opposed to partitions) for quite some time.
I imagine letting Windows suers have to decide on placement for yet another Linux partition confuses them, hence the authors desire for a single partition.
Re:review? where? (Score:2)
Speaking of GNU/Linux (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of GNU/Linux (Score:1)
Re:Speaking of GNU/Linux (Score:1)
Repent, infidels! The end is near...
[ducks]
Re:Speaking of GNU/Linux (Score:2)
First off, the claim is Hurd, the GNU kernel, is going to be released 'real soon now'. Of course, it has been coming 'real soon now' for the past few years. When Linus first began work on the Linux kernel, Hurd was expected to be released in one, maybe two years, and we see how that has gone
Secondly, the completion of the Hurd kernel simply means you can finally build a complete Unix-like system from only GNU (to do it stable you had to use the Linux kernel before. Nothing changes for Linux here. Debian has a Hurd distro, but companies are likely going to ignore Hurd more than theyw ould ignore Linux.
Also, I doubt that any successful linux company has realistic ambitions for the home desktop. The place they have been targetting are servers and professional desktops. They will spend no less time fiddling with the GNU tools simply because a GNU system is available. The "duplication of work" you mention wouldn't change, though GNU utilities have little to do with duplication, distro-specific enhancements typically get folded into the GNU sources after time, and thus all distros eventually inherit each others work...
Re:Speaking of GNU/Linux (Score:2)
The completion of Hurd means not only that you can build a complete Unix-like distribution from only GNU, but that you'll be able to download it from the GNU website. If it turns out to be good software, then it will eventually establish a large userbase, the same way Linux did. Companies might ignore GNU because they don't have control over the distribution, but that hasn't stopped Yahoo and others from using FreeBSD on their servers. Or companies might ignore GNU because of the license and lack of non-free software, but nothing would stop a company from making an internal distribution with their own non-free software, and I'd rather see a company that wanted to use non-free software stay away from GNU anyway. Comparing a GNU with marginal marketshare that runs entirely on software libre with a GNU with huge marketshare that relies on closed software, such as Netscape or Motif, I'd rather the former.
No Linux company has been successful at the desktop yet, because most consumers don't care about software libre. They'd want software gratis, but when Windows is preloaded on any computer they buy, it's just as good (for them) as if Windows was free. When companies like Wal-Mart start selling computers without operating systems, or when Windows becomes so hard to use (or so invasive, i.e. WPA and worse) that consumers don't want to use it anymore, then they'll start buying the cheapest OS they can find on the shelf. In Wal-Mart, that's Mandrake.
Duplication of work isn't a problem for non-graphical apps. However, what about GNOME/KDE, and office productivity programs? There's two different desktops, multiple different word processors, and every distribution (besides Lycoris) comes with more than one. If GNOME and KDE (and Gnome Office and KOffice) could merge, then desktop Linux would be better off. If there's a standard GNU distribution, with only one desktop in it, then I think there would be an incentive for developers on the other project (probably KDE, but you never know) to try to adapt their code to work with both desktops, or to switch entirely.
Re:Speaking of GNU/Linux (Score:2)
It's Pretty... (Score:1)
It does look good, and the ease of installation will attract some people, but I agree with the reviewer, starting up warm immediately after an install is typically a bad idea (as was stated in the article).
It seems they were trying to release an entry-level distro for the neophytes and n00bs that are interested, but don't want to get too far into things. I think, though, with no linuxconf, and problems loading rpms without some associations is going to cause major headaches with the "I call my brother for tech support" crowd (even moreso for the brothers/sisters/moms/dads/sons/daughers/etc that get the "Help Me!" call.
With some more refining, I think they could get something nice going, maybe they should have waited a little longer.
What the hell is linuxconf?? (Score:1)
root@friedmud:~# linuxconf
su: linuxconf: command not found
Well, I don't have it - and I get along fine without it - so why the hell does does lycoris need it?? I am sure that this is something from the Hat/Drake land that people think is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Nothing is necessary in linux - there is always a different/possibly better way to do it.
Derek
Vaporware... (Score:3)
Re:Vaporware... (Score:1)
Re:Vaporware... (Score:2)
Re:Vaporware... (Score:2)
And frankly, I doubt you have even tried Lycoris.
Re:Vaporware... (Score:2)
GNU/Linux not ready to be easy to use? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have gotten used to using StarOffice, Mozilla, Licq, and several other applications that have almost taken the need to boot into Windows away completely. The only times I find myself booting into Windows is to play video games or watch media files that I can't find Linux players for (.wmv--mostly pr0n).
Since Linux can be configured well enough for my far-from-computer-geek girlfriend to use, and the only reason I boot into Windows is to surf for pr0n and play video games, I think that it would actually make a better solution in the working environment. All the productivity, none of the vices...
Just my two cents...
Re:GNU/Linux not ready to be easy to use? (Score:1)
Re:GNU/Linux not ready to be easy to use? (Score:1)
Re:GNU/Linux not ready to be easy to use? (Score:1)
Re:GNU/Linux not ready to be easy to use? (Score:2)
if you're using Red Hat 7.2, install apt from Freshrpms.net. Then:
apt-get install xine
apt-get source mplayer (you'll have to rebuild the package as Mplayer isn't open source)
Either will play WMP7 and 8 files file.
Re:GNU/Linux not ready to be easy to use? (Score:2)
However, I do recommend to everyone in this situation to be careful about what gets stored in their Mozilla history file.
Hohumm. (Score:2)
Mandrake is the way to go for newbies for Linux. Its a great distribution. The only sucky thing about mandrake, is its gcc-2.96 , which quite frankly sucks. But that little thing sucks equally bad with RedHat. *sigh*
Why is it (Score:4, Insightful)
Real work needs to be done in helping the user in case an application fails.
Also, every one of the distros seems to be very superficial; they simply include some nice skins and applications that resemble those in windows, but many of these applications are hardly as functional as their "hard to use" counterparts.
Shouldnt these companies put more of their money behind making powerful products easier to use?
My own impressions... (Score:2)
However, like the author, I wasn't impressed with app installation. With advanced installation managers like apt-get and red-carpet, it's a shame that Lycoris didn't achieve the same level of efficiency. Maybe they could adapt one of these (I really like Red-carpet, even with occasionnal glitch it makes updating and installing software so easy.)
Hmmm...actually, it makes me realize that perhaps Ximian should put out their own distro, following the same kind of philosophy: they already have the e-mail client (evolution) and the install/update manager (Red-carpet), and the Gnome desktop can be configured to look and feel like Windows almost as much as KDE can...use Galeon as a browser, Open or StarOffice for productivity, add a "network neighborhood" app like they have for Desktop/LX and you would have a very newbie-friendly - as long as they fix Nautilus so it's faster (that's Gnome weakest point right now: the Gnome File Manager is ugly and Nautilus is slow...)
Hey, Ximian, are you up to it? I'd buy a copy...
Mandrake 8.2 just released!! (Score:1, Offtopic)
I think Linux is almost ready (Score:3, Informative)
I am a first year compsci student. Before this year, all of my attempts to try to use Linux failed horribly.. but in January this year, I installed Redhat, and immediately fell in love. I've slowly been learning how to take advantage of all of Linux's more advanced features, and I've lately been able to fix problems based on intuition, rather than long searches on Google.
Whenever any of my friends come over, they see my computer, and they gasp. They love the way KDE looks, they love the Liquid theme, they love transparent menu's, they love the functionality of the command prompt, they ENVY the fact I can leave it on for days.. even weeks without having to so much as log out. (probably not the safest thing to be doing.. but it makes me feel big, lol)
The only things which prevent people from installing Linux on their own computers are the following
1. Lack of MSN messenger (Kmerlin) built in. They would not know where to look, if they were going to find it.. and it seems to be the most popular messenger at my university.
2. Once and awhile the Xserver bombs, and deletes the 'fixed fonts'.. which requires some knowledge to fix.
3. Decent CD burning software
4. A file sharing program which does not bomb all the time.
5. Better media support - Built in Divx support... easy to install quicktime support.. easy to find realplayer (it takes awhile to find realplayer if you don't know where to look)
The last thing it needs is to be pre-installed on a few computers.. but this [msnbc.com] article shows why that isn't likely to happen.
In preparation for Ballmer meeting with a Dell executive to talk about the computer maker's support of Linux, a confidential Microsoft briefing e-mail notes as a talking point that "it's untenable for a 'premier partner' of Windows 2000 to be doing aggressive marketing development for another operating system."
"This little drama ends" later that year, Kuney said, with Dell abandoning its Linux efforts with the head of the program being reassigned.
Overall, I think Linux is pretty much ready for the desktop. Everyone here is always bitching about stuff like document support.. which for the desktop, IMO, is pretty irrelevant. The majority of people out there transfer documents by copying and pasting to emails.
Re:I think Linux is almost ready (Score:1)
Re:I think Linux is almost ready (Score:3, Informative)
Lack of MSN Messenger is solved by grabbing Psi [affinix.com], a kick-ass jabber client. (Best I've used on Win32 or Linux).
I've never had trouble with my X Server bombing, but then again I've compiled my own XFree86 4.1.0 from source (not sure why I did it originally). Your CD Creator is a problematic one though, but it is coming.
As far as file sharing goes, I just use LimeWire's Java client. It's actually not too bad with the IBM Java compiler. You're right on when it comes to media though, although this too is coming.
KDE3 from CVS simply rocks, and if you don't want to compile it all yourself just grab the latest 3.0 beta; it's not far off from the CVS right now. I've been running Slack on my notebook for almost two years now, trying both Win4Lin and VMWare for the Windows things I need. If Win4Lin's support didn't suck so hard I'd have stuck with them but now that I only use Windows for the P&E Micro flash tools and some in-house Win32-only software, I hardly need to look at the Start button anymore. WindowMaker with KDE is a very nice combination; there are only two things weird. Klipper must be running or you get some very strange clipboard operation, and Java windows do not sit in the Konqueror "page" -- they are created as new toplevel windows.
All in all I tend to agree with you that Linux is almost ready. Almost. KDE has come a LONG way; it *is* ready for corporate offices but not for home users; I can deploy OpenOffice and KDE on anyone's workstation here and almost not have them notice. :-)
Nothing really all that new (Score:2, Insightful)
A feature most of us don't use anyway, which has been an option in most distros for about 3 years now.
As a GNOME user, I didn't realize that with KDE 2.1x, the kpackage RPM management tool was integrated with the desktop so that it would launch when you double-click an RPM file in Konqueror.
looks like thats a KDE feature, which is avalible with every major distro
Other than Samba, no other system daemons that could be security risks are running
this i feel actually is a feature, i've always thought it was dumb to by default install and run 17 daemons that home users really aren't going to use.
And the linux desktop isn't going to appear over night, it's going to take lots of apps, mainly game and business app support. When you can buy a game with a linux binary and windows on the same cd.
IceWM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IceWM (Score:2, Informative)
Also, icewm's menu has the same problem that most root menus have: too much crap in weird places, partly because of GNOME or KDE menus being integrated in there. I guess somebody making a distribution would be able to streamline it better than I could.
'Course none of this really bothers *me*, but I wouldn't put it in front of anybody who was used to Windows.
Umm... (Score:1)
Actually it's not really but there's already been a review mentioned on here. Once again I will go on the record and say this is one of my favorite distro's!
Desktop Linux = Castrated Linux (Score:2)
They all seem castrated to me, like a Kernel + KDE. I like the approach of Mandrake, who try to deliver an easy to use and configure GNU/Linux System, much more (And Mandrake 8.2 is really good). It's easy, but powerfull (Suse and Caldera are too) and not easy and varporware like Lycoris etc..
I'd like to see a distro use ROX-filer instead... (Score:2)
The first being simplicity; KDE and GNOME look great, and usually run well, but I think somebody coming from a Win98 sort of environment could be easily overwhelmed by the extensive config menus and excessive drek that a lot of distros tend to install. (Although it sounds like Lycoris is better than some in that regard). As for installing software, ROX [sourceforge.net] has a nice system. ROX Apps are self contained within their own directories, with config options stored in a ~/Choices directory. This way of doing things is especially well-suited for apps written in scripting languages with GTK bindings, like Perl, Python, or PHP... installation is just a matter of unzip/tarring the App directory into
The other reason I think ROX would be a good candidate is speed... it runs so much faster on my 566 Celeron than GNOME or KDE ever did. GNOME and KDE's sluggish performance was one of the reasons I never used my Linux partition much... things were just faster in Windows.
It's not the most polished environment, but it's very usable... and if a company did decide to get behind ROX for a distro, I think it could quite a contender. YMMV.
The underlying problem with any desktop environment that tries to cater to non-techie Windows users is the dependance on shared libraries that so many Linux apps have; packages from the original installation disk might conceivably work fine with the system, but user used to just downloading the InstallShield wizard and double clicking on it is going to be frustrated when he goes to install a program from somewhere else and it tells them they have to install some other library first, etc.
On the other hand, if a distro tries to compensate and include every damn library under the sun, more experienced users will scream about bloat.
Limitations -- Yet Quite Good (Score:3, Informative)
Lycoris did NOT like my dual-processor, no-IDE hard drive main system. While it DID install, it couldn't recognize my LS-120 drive as a floppy drive to make a rescue disk. Red Hat 7.2 does. Lycoris botched the LILO install on my main SCSI drive leaving me with LI and no boot disk. It made no mention of recognizing the second processor and the box has 1 Gb of RAM, which requires a kernel toggle -- I have no idea if it actually did. It also defaults to NOT installing the necessary Xine plugin to play CSS-encrypted DVDs. You've gotta track that down yourself.
However, on the single-processor Athlon, w/768 Mb of RAM and an IDE HD and a normal floppy, it worked fine. Install went smoothe and everything was recognized. It was very similar to Windows, which is the point -- keep the mental transition to a minimum.
Personally, I don't like the wallpaper. I found it to be too garish and distracting. However, that is easily enough fixed. I also don't like the theme that fakes transparency (liquid?), as it chews up too much CPU time and seems to make the machine a little sluggish. Again, easy enough to fix.
Recommendations: Kit, while functional, is a bit spartan for most Windows people's IM. A nice Jabber client or the actual Netscape AIM client would be much better. Install DeCSS by default and the plugin for Xine to play encrypted DVDs. It played everything else, though -- DivX, MPEG, OGG, MP3, etc.
KOffice is nice, if you don't need major compatibility with MS Office. Since they left out Konqueror and used Mozilla, I'd suggest replacing KOffice with OpenOffice.
Finally, work a deal with the Crossover people and include the Crossover plugin installed and a wizard to install Quicktime and Shockwave.
It is actually a real good distro for people who know little to nothing about PCs. For power users, it is something to avoid.
Solitaire Watch (Score:2)
I started out with Mandrake 6. I liked it and the Mandrake org, so I'll stay with them
The review seemed to be written with the whimsy that is expected of a Linux install if it is to push WindowsXP off the desktop, for example: "Installation on our dual PIII 450 Mhz seemed to go well and I could play a Solitaire game while waiting for the installation to complete in the background" Uhm did you get good cards? What am I supposed to take from this?
I can't wait 'till somebody copies XPs logins (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting at more than one X session at a time in Linux is needlessly complicated. The nice login screens should have this in mind. Why would a login prompt for a multi-user operating system only handle a single logged in user at a time? Silly.
I know it's only:
startx --
(or whatever the brain-dead syntax is) to start another session, but there really ought to be a better way.
Re:I can't wait 'till somebody copies XPs logins (Score:2, Informative)
And it's even conveniently right there in the GNOME "System" menu! Just click and you get a new login screen.
Re:I can't wait 'till somebody copies XPs logins (Score:2)
Control-F7 is easier and simpler than moving the mouse down to the taskbar, clicking on an applet, and selecting the virtual desktop you want to move to. It's easier than going into a menu and selecting a "Switch Desktop" item. It's easier than any GUI way I could possibly think of.
And, anyone who can understand the difference between multiple accounts and why they might need to switch logins is certainly smart enough to learn an easy-to-remember, useful, convenient key combination.
i disagree completely - Lycoris from a user persp. (Score:3, Insightful)
In all 5 cases (all different machines) it found all hardware and installed seamlessly, the video card on my personal notebook (Dell LS400) was found perfectly, something Mandrake 8 and 8.1 couldnt manage.
the Distro has built in and fully workin Div-xm,DVD, Mp3 and the Koffice suite, Samba configured to acccess windows shares by default and wine.
My home network is a windows XP pro one with a shared internet connection (dont laugh it works 100% perfectly and requires 2 seconds setup) Lycoris found it without config and worked straight away fpr all web funtions, it connects by default with my shares and it does so on windows 200 active directory as well.
In short its a desktop OS for the average user, it doesnt come with advanced features, compilers and dev tools installed but you can download and install them, its a full working simple to use and install linux distro for everyone. I gave it to my mother of all people and she loves it - it does everything she needs, loads fast, looks like fun and she can run her windows stuff.
I have given this OS to about 20 people from technical linux zealots to newbies and all of them have enjoyed using it and the newbies love it - in short its an OS i as an IT manager can roll out on a desktop, it's built on top of redhat and users RPMS which makes it great if you already have redhat servers and use the OS in your environment.
Yes it needs work but what is doesnt need is apache or any other server components, it doesnt need compilers and 10 shells instaled as a default, its a desktop linux and it works and for the first time a user doesnt need to resort to makefiles and consoles to try and get anything working in the OS (Div-x Under redhat anyone ?)
It works for what it is and its worth $29 or you can download for free.
My experience - some good, some bad. (Score:2)
So, installed it. Ran into a couple oddities on an older machine (p166, Rage Pro, dual NICs, serial mouse and ancient keyboard), but got it up and running. After digging around for the non-existent Firewall/Internet-Sharing software in the review (for several hours... Bad first reviewer! That doesn't exist!), I gave up and found the 4 lines I needed in a How-to on their
All in all, pretty good. But, for example: my mouse stopped working. No idea why. But I can't fix it, that I can (as a newbie Linux user) tell! It automatically starts in X, so I need to be able to get to the control panel somehow. No luck. And for the average user, what then? Oh, and on my ancient system, it's Slow. Sloooooooooooow......
So, we'll see if I can get the mouse up. If not, next distro...... SuSe!
Problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows flies, KDE drags. Linux won't win on the desktop until the interface can actually compete with Windows, for every user.
Re:Redmond Linux (Score:1)
Their website says they will change the name on the CD when they sell out of their first run. I wonder when that will happen?
Re:Redmond Linux (Score:1)
Re:Redmond Linux (Score:1)
Here's what I think they are trying to do:
1. The ftp access is severely limited. The lycoris.org FTP site doesn't allow public download of the iso's (at least it didn't when I originally tried, according to their
2. If they change the ftp, there's no incentive to buy the CD. Get the old cd or download new "improved" Lycoris? I don't know about you, but I'd download it.
Re:I think its time Linux gave up on the Desktop ! (Score:1)
Educational.