Sun Mad Hatter Linux Desktop Revealed 663
magellan writes "Sun has released screenshots of its upcoming Mad Hatter Linux desktop. Mad Hatter includes GNOME, StarOffice, Evolution, and Mozilla. Sun has made minor modifications to Gnome to make it more familiar to Windows users. Sun's Mad Hatter, along with SuSE's new push on the desktop, could make Linux on the corporate desktop and laptop a bigger reality."
Windows... (Score:4, Insightful)
fp
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand I'm sick of all attempts to make WM's look'n'feel like windows environment. It's reasonable to a point, but `copying' every tiny detail is too much.
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
My main problems with Windows are the bugs, the licensing, and the built in limits meant to encourage home users to upgrade to their $4000 enterprise edition, which gives you comparable functionality to Linux and other free operating systems.
Too many flavours ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally the only differences between a wo
Re:Too many flavours ... (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Data Center, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows NT 4.0 Server, Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, Windows Me, Windows 98, Windows 98SE are all still in wide use. In fact, I've yet to see anyone running Windows 2003 Server, especially around work, since none of our software is certified for anything but Windows 2000 (SP 3 at that). We only got rid of the last NT server in our group last fall after one of our vendors finally certified their product for Windows 2000. I would imagine they'll support Windows 2003 Server sometime in 2005.
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't suppose you know enough to change to classic mode, set up the classic look, and simply turn off all of the fluff?
Most people I know who don't want to upgrade to XP because they don't like the look are exactly the sorts of people that aren't technically savvy enough to even begin to think about dealing with the higher learning curve of *nix.
I have less respect for someone that uses Linux because they think it's perfect, than I do for someone that runs Wi
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
At least the GUI is not the major problem with Windows. The Windows GUI is not bad, but there are a few things I dislike about the Windows GUI. For example the virtual desktops available in most Linux GUIs should have been standard in Windows by now. In an earlier comment [slashdot.org] I told about some of the reasons I like the average Linux GUI more than Windows.
Re:Windows... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows... (Score:4, Informative)
Note We've taken great care to ensure that PowerToys operate as they should, but they are not part of Windows and are not supported by Microsoft.
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Informative)
It is all the stuff UNDER the hood that suck-didly-ucks. I don't mind Linux grabbing a Windows look at all. If nothing else, it will make it easier to get users to move over to Linux from their Windows machines.
Re:Windows... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Informative)
First, we tend to focus on the flaws in Windows. Windows contains a lot of good ideas (which originated at many companies over many years...Apple, for instance, is a major contributor). Just because it isn't as good as it could be and isn't improving doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.
Second of all, many of the flaws in Windows are not UI-related. Windows has stupid file locking semantics...but that doesn't affect how you double click on an icon.
Third, even if Windows is a nonoptimal way to operate, many, many people know how to use Windows and Windows software. They're familiar with Windows interface conventions, and anything different from Windows will face an immediate barrier. Once folks are on Linux, we can continue working on making the environment better.
Fourth, many of the things that suck about Windows only affect folks that are writing software or do lots of network work. So Windows may be a poor OS choice for a typical Slashdot user, but that doesn't mean that its flaws are a big issue for a typical office user, which is who Sun is targetting.
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Interesting)
Man, I wish that were true. I really do, but it's not.
Windows flaws are duplicated.
The flaw that bit my ass a couple weeks ago... auto-numbering in OpenOffice.com's word processor. Faithfully duplicates Word's shitting auto-numbering "feature". Godawful.
It's all about duplication. Period.
--Richard
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
most user will think "Ohh, this looks like windows, so it has to work like windows!"
like on a cd player or a vcr all the buttons look same
and i think may will get angry if it does not
if the UI clearly differs from the windows the user will realise "Ohhh, this is something else, maybe i should make the tutorial that pops up, or look at some documentation!!"
i think a move away from windows would be a real chance to change and improve the UI dramatical
we should not keep things because users are used to them but because they are the easiest way to do the job
Close... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of like qwerty keyboards really...
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, we tend to focus on the flaws in Windows. Windows contains a lot of good ideas (which originated at many companies over many years...Apple, for instance, is a major contributor). Just because it isn't as good as it could be and isn't improving doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.
I used to, but I hardly know what the flaws are anymore, except for the ones that have remained since Windows 95. Once I stopped having a Windows partition I had less and less opportunities to be annoyed by them, and
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not -- it falls prey to the same issues of getting trapped that running simulated annealing without keeping things hot enough long enough runs into.
People *do* seek minima, but they will seek out local minima, not just global minima. If they're offered a feature that will make things easier and better with no cost to them, they'll take it. However, if they have the option to use something better but there is significant relearning time, they may well choose not to put out the effort.
In the case of Windows, many people know Windows. There are known issue with Windows where it does not fit with current best practices in human interface research. Take...oh, say, the use of pie menus, for instance. However, people are familiar with Windows's current linear menus, and even if there was a long-term benefit to changing to a different interface, they are going to be unhappy with the sort term cost.
I believe that the same thing is true of Linux.
How will Linux UI become "better" in the future? Why isn't these things implemented now?
The UI on Linux has been *steadily* (and compared to competitors, extremely rapidly) been improving. About twelve years ago, Linux didn't even exist. About ten years ago, you needed to be a bit of a kernel hacker to consider touching Linux. Seven years ago, a fairly serious techie experimenter, comfortable with poking around with your bootloaders. Five years ago, you had to still be a pretty decent power user, be comfortable not having a GUI for configuring much of anything, and be able to deal with lots of incompatibilities with Windows software, much less little hardware support. Four years ago, you had to be willing to deal with pretty alpha-ish, flaky or archaic desktop environment software, and still had to worry pretty constantly about hardware compatibility.
Frankly, Linux as a general user desktop environment has essentially gone from zero to threat #1 on Microsoft's worry list in the last three or four years. In some areas, UIs on Linux have surpassed their Microsoft equivalents. KDE's use of detachable panes or GNOME's complete user-configurability of keyboard menu equivalents are pretty neat. Four years ago, Linux multimedia was a pretty sad thing -- there was a commercial mpeg player called mtv and a couple of projects. Today, properly set up Linux boxes smoke Windows in latency. Microsoft has not adapted will to the tougher security requirements of an Internet-connected age, as Linux has.
Linux still has issues that keep some people from using it. A lack of entertainment software (most traditional video games do not make very good open source projects) is significant. Poor inter-distro binary and library compatibility is also an issue. If I had to ship something in binary format that I knew would run on Linux boxes, I'd probably ship it in PE format, because Wine can provide stronger guarantees about binary compatibility than Linux itself can. Linux also does not currently, IMHO, cater as well to the power-user-but-not-techie as Linux does. The light user, who uses a spreadsheet, word processor, email program, and web browser (oh, and Solitaire), has little problem with Linux other than an inability to interact with Microsoft Office file formats reliabily, and enjoys increased stability. The techie loves Linux's ability to be remotely administered, its performance, customizability, scriptability, huge (and free) suite of development tools, and availability of source to fix irritating bugs. The almost-techie-power-user, however, runs into problems. Linux has a thinner layer of GUI over the internals than does Windows. They're probably going to have to interact with the CLI. The power user may want to install unusual software, the sort of thing that doesn't come packaged, but be incapable of dealing with any problems in compiling that software.
So I believe that Linux is getting better for most desktop users much faster than Windows is, but there are definitely categories of users that will not be happy with Linux.
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
Open a file, and try to move or rename that file while it's open (drives me nuts when using less in cygwin). Sharing violation. Doesn't happen in Linux.
Try running any kind of update or setup program. You generally get told to reboot. Why? Because Windows forces you to close all libraries, which means closing all programs using libraries, before they can be removed and the new versions of the libraries slapped into place. Linux uses UNIX file locking semantics, so the files can simply be deleted. They won't actually go away until the library is closed, but any new instances of programs started after an upgrade will use the new libraries. These poor file locking semantics are the reason for almost all of required Windows reboots.
I was particularly irritated when I noticed Microsoft's (IMHO dangerous and complexity-inducing) workaround for this. In XP, some MS exec realized that constant sharing violation error dialogs coming up when users tried to rename or delete files or directories containing open files or directories were pissing off users, so they ordered that this be fixed. Instead of fixing the NT kernel to be more capable, they made a workaround in XP's Explorer. From now on, failures in moving or deleting files and directories would be silent. Furthermore, to provide the user the illusion of his operation succeeding, XP's Explorer will even remove the directory's icon from any open windows. However, it is not actually deleted, and upon refreshing a window showing the directory's icon, you will notice that the icon returns.
I use about six Windows machines operating off of a single share on a regular basis. Since I frequently have consoles open in a directory (or Explorer windows open to a directory on other computers), I constantly get sharing violations. This is annoying and time-consuming, but harmless. However, Microsoft trying to play work around poor kernel design choices in Explorer is, IMHO, pretty awful.
I could also mention the poor workaround in Explorer for another NT kernel shortcoming -- the lack of support for symlinks (Shortcuts), and a host of other technical issues I have with Windows. (Remember the 8.3->long filenames issues?) The thing is that Microsoft isn't as interested in issues internal to Windows as Linus and friends do. Microsoft developers work to get a paycheck, and don't care what happens as long as end users don't see any obvious flaws. Linus is trying to produce a code showpiece, and if people can use it to help themselves out, fantastic. As a result, most Linux failings are due to the fact that developers weren't interested or motivated enough to deal with some issue that was of interest to end users but not developers, and most Microsoft issues are due to the fact that Microsoft made a customer-driven poor engineering decision in the past.
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Informative)
As for symlinks, the NT kernel certainly does support symlinks (fsutil hardlink in XP from the command line), it's Explorer that doesn't use them. In general with Windows there's a lot of confusion about "Windows" vs. the NT kernel. "Windows" certainly has a lot of legacy design (such as shortcuts) in it that predates NT, but the NT kernel does the same sort of attention as the Linux kernel.
But the Linux & NT teams also have entirely different design philsophies. Linux obviously comes from Unix, which of course was a rebellion from Multics; the goal being to Keep It Simple, Stupid. But NT comes from VMS, and NT is partly a rebellion from Unix (remember all of the NT is going to kill Unix stories from a decade ago?).
Just to give you some concrete examples of what I mean, the NT kernel supports things such as a threadpool, IO completion ports, and a very robust synchronization API where many kernel objects (files, processes, threads, all represented in user space by handles) can all be "waited" on. Another good example of how NT is more advanced than Linux is that it doesn't kill processes "by heuristic" when it runs out of memory. It just quitely denies memory allocations in a reliable fashion, allowing programs to attempt to handle the OOM condition.
As for the file deleting issue, I think there's some interesting arguments about program integrity here. But first let me point out: Windows offers a FILE_SHARE_DELETE flag when opening files, that allows other processes to delete that file. Given that flag I think it becomes obvious that guaranteeing an application's file will be there is actually a feature to enhance program integrity, rather than some weakness in NT.
Re:Windows... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not an NT systems coder, so I can't respond to some of these. I don't know why you'd need kernel-level support for thread pools. I don't agree that not having an OOM killer is more advanced design. I used to think that the OOM killer was an awful hack, but I've come to feel more and more that it's a lesser-evil solution. The overwhelming majority of software, and all large software packages that I can think of, simply do not check to ensure that they can succeed on all memory allocations. In a system where you don't have an OOM killer and run out of memory, things generally simply grind slower and slower, a couple apps get failed allocations (which may lead to crashes or odd behavior later in the lifetime of the app), and fairly soon something (generally one of the worse-written apps) crashes. So, essentially, you *have* an OOM killer on NT. It's just a bit less intelligent about choosing what to kill, and can wipe out more apps. The days of classic MacOS-style fancy application-level memory management are pretty much dead, IMHO. Too much programmer work. Finally, checking malloc() results doesn't do you a damn bit of good if the allocation is a stack allocation -- what are you planning to do, other than wedge the application or kill it?
Some of the things you mentioned seem to be features that are more useful in a Windows-like environment, where there's more of a focus on threads than processes. Given that UNIX coders have thread-based models and process-based-models available these days and tend to stick with process-based-models, I feel that this is more of a Windows flaw -- that if Windows allowed a decent fork(), process pools would eliminate the need for completion ports.
Finally, I think your argument supporting NT's file locking semantics is based on a misunderstanding of how UNIX file locking works. If I have a file open, it may be deleted. However, the file is refcounted, and each hard link and each open file table entry for that file counts as a reference. So the space for that file and all of its data remains valid until the application closes it. The only guarantee NT makes that UNIX doesn't is that if an application has a file open for read, then opening it again for read will not fail to deleted -- but it *could* change for a number of other reasons, like permission modifications. So NT's semantics provide very dubious benefits, and huge problems by way of forced rebooting and killing of applications.
Finally, WRT to FILE_SHARE_DELETE (which I admit that I did not know about) -- the thing is simply not a solution to UNIX semantics. First, it only works on NT, so no programmers will use it for anything but custom apps for at least a few years. Second, as far as I can tell, it requires the process deleting the file to take abnormal action to delete the file (OpenFile() with the FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE). Third, I don't believe the file is deleted until it's actually closed (no Windows box handy to test on, however). This means that if you open the thing, you cannot create a new file with the same name in the same location until the process is closed. Fourth, it requires the process opening the file to take abnormal action (pass in the special flag). Fifth, there is a huge installed base of libraries and other functions that do not allow you to pass in FILE_SHARE_DELETE. The NT object loader doesn't do so, so DLLs cannot be replaced when an application is running (which means closing apps, rebooting computer, etc). It's a good bet that many userspace libraries also do not allow you to pass in this flag. This effectively makes it useless from the user's point of view.
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Insightful)
When pepole bash Windows (this includes me), we're usually bashing the stability, the security holes, etc. The "standard" Windows GUI, is quite good though.
You press start to stop the computer (Score:3, Insightful)
It's VERY well done, and some of the things (like the start menu and the systray) are very well done.
You press start to stop the computer.
You press start... to stop the computer!
And pressing the Logo key between Ctrl and Alt will unceremoniously dump the player out of a fast-action full-screen game.
The "standard" Windows GUI, is quite good though.
The graphical shell lacks some things. Does it have a way to search for file names by regular expressions, by exact substring/phrase, or even by al
Re:You press start to stop the computer (Score:5, Insightful)
But hey, that's just me.
Re:You press start to stop the computer (Score:4, Insightful)
All flammable opinions aside, this is a very sad fact (I don't know if 1% is correct, but the point is still valid).
To some extent, regexps suffer from the same problem many Free Software projects do, and it's that a lot of people simply don't want to get very far along the learning curve. We tend to live the moment and try to get the job done as fast as possible, so investing time learning something useful is usually pretty hard, no matter how blatantly obvious the potential benefits are.
Imagine how much efficiency could be gained from teaching at least some basic regexp skills to secretaries, just to mention one example.
Actually, many of us who use regexps everyday, still do it poorly sometimes.
Jeffrey Friedl put it clearly in his book "Mastering Regular Expressions":Re:You press start to stop the computer (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I disagree with you, but there is precedent for this at Microsoft.
There was an interesting interview a couple of years back -- I apologize for not googling for a URL, but it's been too long and I remember it too vaguely -- where one of the project managers for Microso
Re:You press start to stop the computer (Score:3, Insightful)
Since then, there really hasn't been a competitor to Office that offers all of its features or has made any sort of dent in its market share, so Microsoft hasn't really had much of a compulsion to add a whole bunch of new features to its core Office apps (word/excel/PP). If yo
Re:You press start to stop the computer (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, one of the things I find the most aggravating about Office XP is that the UI color scheme and widgets in Windows XP and Office XP do not match. They're different. Why did they bother?
On the topic of stuff that's been in maintenance mode, the damn equation editor still sucks and has plenty of wacky rendering issues, and it has had them for th
Re:You press start to stop the computer (Score:3, Interesting)
The perfect GUI would be one that had the n00b-simplicity of Finder (MacOS 7), the taskbar of Windows minus the word "Start" (perhaps, instead, the name of the GUI; cf. KDE), and the ability to run a full Bourne shell in a window (Win9x, using MinGW's ash or Cygwin's bash; *x, using an xterm; even NeXT's os could do this, and so can AtheOS, AFAIK) and a lot of the typical utilities. And I like to run a program by hitting Win-R and typing the name of the program.
And.
Re:You press start to stop the computer (Score:5, Insightful)
So? I've been quitting programs for a decade or so using the "File" menu. Since when has quitting a program been a file operation?
The semantics of "Start" is that to do anything, you "start here". That actually makes more sense to me than putting Quit under the File menu.
Re:Cygwin issues (Score:3, Informative)
-uso.
"PathoLogic Linux+GNU"
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, the Windows GUI is pretty simplistic. Sure it's fine if you just use a handful of apps at the same time, but as soon as you have more than 10 or so windows open, you need multiple desktops.
Re:Windows... (Score:3, Informative)
Next.
Gee... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft Windows is the bimbo that everyone wants to date -- great looking exterior, but nothing underneath the surface. It's it only real purpose is to fuck you over.
Linux is like the mousy looking girl who works at the library. Smart and fun as all get-out, but not necessarily as pretty as the bimbo.
Now Sun is trying to offer a library girl with bimbo good-looks. I say more power to them.
by your analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmmm...I like that.
Re:by your analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Great to look at, but expensive as fuck and not much to do with her.
Re:Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent question. I see two basic reasons.
1. We are already familiar with it, so the learning curve is less steep. Although the Windows desktop is not perfect, it IS pretty good, and the flexibility of Linux will allow more configurability under all circumstances, so it can be made less like Windows and more like what you want it to be, if you know how. If you don't know how to configure it, then the "Windows like" look is probably the best desktop anyway.
2. The closer the Linux desktop looks to Windows 9x/xp, the more people will be willing and/or able to use it. The more people that use it, the more likely that popular applications will get ported to it OR some group will form to develop an open source application to replace the proprietary software. Linux doesn't need 97% to be successful. 20% of the desktop market is more than enough for this to happen. We are about 17%+ at this time.
In business, a company that want to compete with larger companies in the same industry will often compete on the lower price part of the market. Units are less expensive to stock, and you can gain "economy of scale" at a lower investment level. You make the cheap stuff and sell it for less, then work your way up the ladder, eating away your competitor's market share. The same holds true for Linux.
As an advocate of Linux, who uses Windows and Linux, I have faith that the applications and commercial support for Linux will continue to grow. Broadening the appeal of Linux to mainstream users will excellerate this process, by increasing the potential financial returns for companies who are considering developing or porting applications on Linux.
You may or may not like software from Adobe, Macromedia, and the like, but many DO, and they will be more willing to switch if they can get their favorite software (or free alternatives to a degree). Me, I just want Photoshop on Linux so I can work up CMYK stuff. But we need less technical minded people using Linux before we will get broader support by developers.
It is in our own best interest to welcome the broadest range of Linux users, an open tent that all are welcome in. This includes people who don't want to know how the OS works, they just want it to work. When all is said and done, Linux has the best potential to do this.
nothing like a new sun product (Score:2, Funny)
Re:nothing like a new sun product (Score:2)
nice, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Gnome sure can be pretty - it mught be time for me to switch back from kde....
Hyperlinked (Score:2, Informative)
Fine I'll do it myself:
https://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-lis
Re:nice, but... (Score:2)
Those "new" Redhat screenshots don't look any different than Bluecurve in Redhat 8 and 9. What is actually new??
Annoying that it's Gnome (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, Gnome developers, switch Cancel and Ok to a consistent Ok(LHS) and Cancel(RHS)... Please?!!!
So annoying! I'd use Gnome, be proud of it and recommend to all, if not for this one, single, pull-my-hair-out irritation.
As it is, every time I try to introduce Gnome to someone (Mac or Windows user), that's the first place they stumble. Then I have to say, "Well... Eheh... Why don't we try KDE. Mk?".
Look, it sure seems that the whole left-to-right-reading world thinks this way. I think Gnome is a terrific windowing environment, otherwise.
[puts asbestos suit on, real fast]
Continue to Cancel? (Score:3, Funny)
Heh, that reminds me: I was cancelling an online subscription last night, and after verifying my password it gave me a summary screen of what I was doing and had two buttons : "Continue to Cancel" and "No, Do Not Cancel".
I printed it to PDF but haven't put it online yet.
Cancel and OK placement (Score:4, Insightful)
There's actually some fairly solid UI research that says the OK button should usually be on the RHS of a dialog. People who speak and read left-to-right languages like English tend to scan a dialog box from upper-left to lower-right, and their brains really want to click on whatever is in the lower-right corner of the dialog. Thus, the default button (usually OK) should almost always go there.
I remember reading this in a book on user interface design about 10 or 15 years ago. I think the research was done at apple, but it wasn't an Apple book. It was a collection of articles in a big blue paperback with a poorly-designed walk/don't-walk sign on the cover, but I can't remember the title. Now I may have to go dig through the boxes in my closet.
Re:Cancel and OK placement (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true. However - in the last 10 to 15 years people have been indoctrinated into having their OK button on the
Re:Cancel and OK placement (Score:3, Informative)
Eh? Why do you figure that people would pull to the left in an emergency? Can yo
Re:Annoying that it's Gnome (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, as at least one other person has noted [slashdot.org], the correct way to do it would not be with simplistic "yes/no/cancel" dialogs, but with verbs. This is part of Apple's UI guidelines for the Aqua/OSX interface, and one of the commenters below notes that apparently this is a rule for Gnome as well (if, apparently, and ignored one).
Think about it, which is clearer --
Can you even parse out how "no" and "cancel" are different, or what would be the expected behavior if you chose one? Usually you end up seeing silly hints such as this:
Note to UI designers: if you have to add explanatory footnotes to your dialogs, your dialogs are broken .
You can argue all your want about the sequence of the buttons. Some of the people responding have alluded to UI research suggesting that "NO" "YES" is more intuitive for people than "YES" "NO", but I'm not familiar with that research so I won't get into it. I do know, however, that people are very good at unambiguously interpreting what simple verbs mean, and don't have to think through the consequences of a simple "do this" or "do that". On the other hand, figuring out what "yes, no, maybe" in response to a seemingly simple question, like the one above, can be annoyingly ambiguous. Quit making this mistake!
Yes/No/Cancel may be the UI model that Windows is stuck with, but there's still enough wiggle room for Gnome & KDE to avoid that trap. I hope that they manage to do so. Don't you agree?
Verb buttons -- great idea, especially in 1988! (Score:3, Informative)
Close an unsaved document in Edit.app, and you get a dialog saying:
Save changes to UNTITLED.rtf?
[Cancel] [Don't Save] [Save]
Save is the default (activatd by pressing Return)
If you quit Edit.app, then the dialog is:
There are edited windows.
[Cance] [Quit Anyway] [Review Unsaved]
Review Unsaved is the default. Clicking it brings up the aforementioned Save dialog. It makes pe
Re:Annoying that it's Gnome (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmmm, screenshots (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Intigration with Solaris... (Score:2)
Hats? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hats? (Score:4, Funny)
Kinda skimpish, (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Kinda skimpish, (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea is to let Sun do the not-so-fun-but-profitable work of pulling people over to GNOME from Windows. Sun goes after Microsoft, and we get to keep making fun software.
A lot of the folks Sun's after aren't coders. There's lots of good software for coders out there, because OSS people like writing stuff that they can actually use themselves. Sun likes making money, so Sun does their thing.
I wish Sun had more of a Linux movement, but I suppose Solaris and BSD are really the only things out there that can compete with Linux and more, and Sun wants to keep their sunk investment in place.
Re:Kinda skimpish, (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like you skimped on the reading.
-Peter
Re:Kinda skimpish, (Score:3, Funny)
Cooped? Huh? They stuck it in a cage with a bunch of chickens? How do they expect to make money doing that? How come the article didn't mention this? Where did you find out?
Warning: Spoiler (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Warning: Spoiler (Score:3, Funny)
I've not watched it yet.
Re:Warning: Spoiler (Score:3, Funny)
The way he looked in Bowling for Columbine, I wonder if he will discover the same in real life. Kind of a Reaganesque way to go.
There's more to it than just that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, now imagine if your work (well, porn watching) was interrupted by a nosey boss (or mother). All you have to do is yank the card out, the screen locks itself and renders itself ready to other users. You can go on to another more private terminal and simply stick your card in, and presto - everything you were doing is now displayed on the new terminal. (back to porn!)
Cool stuff, but fairly much in competition with LTSP.
But is it safe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's more to it than just that... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sun has been doing this for quite a few years now. Their thin-client line is called Sun Ray [sun.com]. I've seen the Sun Ray 150 [sun.com] model demo'd in several places and used by a crew that runs the terminal room for a series of infosec conferences. Very nice.
Whats even more interesting is when you plug in a Citrix server and have access to Windows apps from your Unix desktop.
Why would anyone support this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here we have Scott McNealy [internetwk.com] telling people ""Don't touch open-source software unless you have a team of intellectual-property lawyers prepared to scour every single piece" of open-source code. " yet they're also releasing an open sourced distribution of Linux.
What's the deal with Sun? One minute their CEO is in a penguin suit extolling the world starts with open source, then it's Solaris will save the world, then it's Linux is doomed because of the SCO thing, etc.
I wouldn't want to support someone so wishy washy
Re:Why would anyone support this? (Score:4, Insightful)
You might not (and the rest of the "community") but the real world people do want to listen to Sun.
Re:Why would anyone support this? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were one person acting this way I'd agree with you, but it's a corporation. I have no problem with seeing part of that corporation survive while other parts become extinct. That's more likely to happen if you support the part that's making the right decisions.
Re:Why is OpenOffice *NOT* FREE? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the GPC site, http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/alan/software//
Louis
OpenOffice.org
Re:Remember, Sun finances SCO (Score:3, Informative)
SCO hired David Boies on or before, January 10, 2003.
SCO Threatens to Press IP Claims on Linux [sys-con.com]
On January 22, 2003, SCO made their public announcement.
Has SCO Fired Shot to Start Linux War? [infoworld.com]
Sun closed their deal, paid their money, and received their stock warrant on or after February 1, 2003.
SCO 10-Q [sec.gov]
I think Sun knew what SCO was planning to do with Boies, especially since SCO and IBM h
Mozilla theme (Score:2)
Re:Mozilla theme (Score:2)
Yes, but will it run on SCO? (Score:5, Funny)
Heh heh. Just checking your reflexes.
Looking glass (Score:2)
Launch = Start = Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Launch = Start = Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple got a lot of flack for interface changes in MacOS X, and some of that flack was for good reason, but at least they tried, and continue to be trying; check out Expose [apple.com] for a great example. I'd love to see some of that kind of innovation coming from the Linux camp, there would be a hell of a lot more reason to "switch" (or at least check out linux at all) if there was some easily demonstrable reason it was better than Windows/MacOS X/etc.
For most Americans, if "free" is not compelling enough then "equal" is probably not compelling enough either; there has to be something tangible linux offers that they can't get on their existing platform. And this ain't it.
~jeff
Re:Launch = Start = Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Launch = Start = Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
People do NOT care about "freeing themselves from MS", they don't care about speed (we have insanely fast CPUs now), and they certainly don't want anything other than what they already are used to.
People HATED XP when it first came out (and most still do) because it was "different" and they couldn't find anything.
We have seen plenty of articles on here about how people are finding applications easily when switching from Windows-based OSs. They find the "start menu", they then find applications that are "familiar".
You think that a "freed desktop look" is going to have easy to find applications that are familiar?
We want people to switch but we don't want to make that switch easy? Get real.
Re:Launch = Start = Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, no. In fact, Windows XP sold more than Windows 95 did at its launch.
What's different about XP? I keep seeing this FUD about how "everything's moved around," and "nobody can find anything," when the only major things that are changed from 2000 is a bunch of icons moved from the desktop to the Start menu (configurable). Oh, and Common Tasks (also configurable). The only other thing
Unique Feature (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a new meaning of unique that marketeers use? Unique meaning "not in the equivalent Microsoft product".
Tabbed browsing - unique to mozilla, workspace switcher, unique to Linux???
Mozilla? (Score:2)
Project Mad Hatter will include a Web browser based on code from mozilla.org.
Looking at the screenshot [sun.com], that appears to be Mozilla itself, not a browser "based on Mozilla code." It seems to me like Sun is trying to to make it sound like they wrote the frontend themselves, which doesn't appear to be true. Anyone know about this?
it's the apps interface (Score:3, Insightful)
This actually looks viable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux will _never_ gain any major ground in the coporate desktop world until it looks and feels like Windows. Most non-computer-industry types do not like change--no matter what the benefits are. This project appears to fill that very important hole - something that's almost a Windows "workalike" while eschewing any proprietary Microsoft code.
This *looks* good, a bit cleaner than WinXP & it is laid out a bit nicer. Things like "This Computer" instead of the pandering, cheesier "My Computer" set it apart yet the thing looks instantly familiar to anyone who has used Windows.
Kudos to Sun for finally getting the desktop right.
Re:This actually looks viable... (Score:3)
This is such a widely believed myth, but I don't believe it. Look at the changes between Windows 3.11 and Windows 95, and between Windows 9x/2k and Windows XP, and look at the screenshots from Longhorn to see how different that will be from XP. The fact is that Windows changes looks quite often, which makes the whole "it has to look like Windows" argument very dubious.
Already have a Windows Workalike: FVWM95 (Score:4, Interesting)
Still, FVWM95 has not helped Linux to penetrate the corporate desktop market even though FVWM95 has been available for at least 3 years.
However, there is good news. The vehicle that is helping Linux to penetrate the corporate desktop market is the powerful 80x86 chips by Intel and AMD. Numerous small American companies (like those in Silicon Valley and Boston's Route 128) are moving en masse away from Unix workstations with crappy processors like UltraSPARC to Linux desktops with powerful processors like the Pentium 4, the Athlon, and the PPC 970.
In fact, the CEO of one company developing radio-frequency chips deploys only Linux desktops and servers. The Linux desktops are powered by Pentium 4s. To quote her, "Linux running on an 80x86 chip creates a desktop that gives 3x the performance and 1/3 the cost of a Sun workstation."
The bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun.
gaack (Score:4, Insightful)
*If* it happens (and that's a big "if") it'll take years, and it's entirely likely that it won't. Assuming Microsoft has only 90% desktop marketshare, that's 10% split among Apple, Linux, etc. That means *no one* is even *close* to MS's dominance on the desktop. (Remember the Princess Bride? Think "land war in Asia") So why does anyone think Sun or Mandrake or anyone else is going to be the one who makes PHBs say "Well, gee, if Sun is behind it, I'll switch everything tomorrow!"?
I like Linux as much as the next guy, but this pie-eyed optimism is not getting anyone anywhere. Hell, headlines here oughtta read "Company X introduces Linux desktop that's nicer than last year's; world continues not to care."
Re:gaack (Score:4, Insightful)
How did Word take over from WordPerfect? Word always assumed the user didn't want to learn so much. For command line users this was the wrong assumption - people who "talk" to their machines tend to enjoy learning. But it turned out to be just the right assumption once we went visual and pointing began to suffice for communication. Companies started firing their secretaries and having execs do their own typing, and the execs just wanted to get the job done the simplest way. Then they wanted to have the remaining secretaries' docs be compatible, so they forced stupidifying software on them too. In Word-land, document writes you.
Hello. Cheap, fast, free, doesn't catch viruses, doesn't crash
sorry, but this interface for me (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never said that about any other interface, considering how I hate CDE
It looks like a cheap clone of win95, just not properly done and with inconsistancies everywhere. I think they should have just used bluecurve or something like that.
New life for Sun hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
Already Switched / Best Home Distro? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not having the time or desire to replace it, I decided that I would throw my Linux box in as my primary desktop. After a few short days I am happy to report that the Linux Desktop is actually VERY usable and VERY stable.
First I needed an MP3 player capable of working with Shoutcast (streaming MP3's). RedHat decided not to include one. I headed over to source forge and picked up XMMS [sourceforge.net] . XMMS is very similar to Winamp.
Once I had my tunes, it was time to get the core services working i.e. (Printing, Office Automation, and Digital Camera). Since I have an HP printer which handles postscript setting up printing was a no brainer. My color printer is an EPSON CX-5200 attached to a windows machine via USB. I know I can get connectivity via Samba, but I am not sure how the driver is going to work out. I'll tackle color printing later.
Open Office works extremely well, is compatible with MS Office and prints very nicely. For kicks, I went back to Sourceforge and downloaded and compiled the latest version of WINE and then, installed MS Office 97. My first attempt went poorly since the paper clip assistant crashes WINE. I wiped out the install and started over and minutes later I could run MS-Word and Excel under Linux. Let me repeat that, YOU CAN RUN MSOFFICE UNDER LINUX.
Next it was time for getting the pics off my digital camera. I have a USB Compact Flash reader plugged into the USB port. I stuck the compact flash card in and the harddrive blinked a bit but nothing mounted. After digging around in
mount
and VIOLA! Pictures!
Next I needed an image editor. I played around with GIMP, which is very very nice but longed for Photoshop 6.0. I tried to install Photoshop with WINE but had no luck. I googled for help and found the only way to do it was to use CrossOver Office. After downloaded and installing Cross Over Office I was able to install both Adobe Photoshop Elements V2.0 and Photoshop 6.0 . I haven't shelled out for the 7.0 upgrade yet but 7.0 supposedly works as well. Photoshop works well under WINE and I haven't had any problems except with the ALT-key. In GNOME pressing ALT and clicking in a Window is the shortcut for moving a window. You have to remap the ALT-Click to something else and I chose the WINDOWS/Logo key. I never knew this feature existed, but I find it quite useful
I was in bliss... GNOME, Photoshop, XMMS, OpenOffice, MS-Office, Ximian, and Mozilla with everything running in it's own workspace. If you haven't tried Linux as your Desktop, give it a shot. It's not as easy and point, click, install however,
Next I needed to get into work. Using SSH, I created a tunnel into work and cranked up VNC to my Windows 2000 box. VNC was running mightly slow, 40 secs for a screen update. The version of VNC that comes with RedHat 9.0 is pretty crusty so I went and obtained the new version and performance is much better (1-2 sec screen updates). Note: In VNC PRESS F8 get execute a remote CTRL-ALT-DELETE or shuffle clipboard contents.
I also used SSH to create another tunnel and used rdesktop over the tunnel to access a Windows Terminal Server. Very impressive and FAST! Between VNC and rdesktop I can access my remote deskop Windows box at work.
I haven't got any games to work yet. My favorites are Star Craft Broodwar, CIV3, and Age of Mythology. If anyone has gotte
Suns commitment, SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
Expect a statement along the lines of "but to really get the benefit of the cutting edge Mad Hatter, along with a robust, industrial strength OS, take a look at this Solaris-x86 over here..."
Sun certainly has a trust problem to deal with.
YAD (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I like the looks of the desktop, the fact that Sun is bringing forward Linux and that my skills will have a bigger market in the future. But yet another distro confuses me. Why anyway?
I can understand Knoppix being based on Debian. It is Debian only prettier, so all debian packages will work with Knoppix. Knoppix also brings great hardware detection with it. Theres RedHat and SuSE, while I hate the fact that these two are incompatible with debian packages, they at least have compatible RPM packages with each other. Theyre also quite big and proprietary which makes it worth learning them. Hate it also that RedHat is not LSB, makes it tougher for software developers to package them for RedHat and SuSE.
Theres Gentoo and Slackware, each in its own niche. Then theres Lindows, Ximian Lycoris all competing with each other on the desktop (I know lycoris is based on debian too). Thats too many distros already. More so than the niches among current Linux users. One step forward is several distros use deb packaging and almost all can install RPM packages. But it still instills dependancy mayhem. Now you have a Sun distro that possibly uses its own packaging as WELL as RPM. So you need to install an RPM package that depends on another package on Mad Hatter. The other is already installed from
And of course you'll definitely have to install all of GTK and KDE dependency libraries to use various X applications. Total install size will exceed 2GB and overall the system will run slower and in the desktop, will have more problems than Windows XP. THATS how badly standards are needed in Linux.
Looks very nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Looks to much like Windows 95 (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that depends on what you think of OSX, Bluecurve and Longhorn.
Seriously though, I think interfaces have just been getting worse. (Ex: OSX, WinXP.) Someone really needs to cull the eye candy from the default setup and instead go back to ease of use.
Re:Looks to much like Windows 95 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good but... (Score:3, Interesting)