It has Begun! M$ will pay for their crimes!!

[shochan]

I don't know if you folks have heard about lindows yet. It runs linux and windows together in the same shell, not side by side. It is about to hi beta but they have to wait till M$ stops trying to sue them. Damn bastards. But this thing can run everything windows can and everything linux can its the best of both worlds. I cant wait. Here are some screen shots to check it out. They are running office2k in it. oh and best of all it is free, but you have to pay for the cd or to download it from them. But if a friend has it he can legaly give you a copy.

http://www.lindows.com/screenshots

[Vejita-sama]

Haven't gone through their url but a friend mentioned them to me in passing last year. IRIC the OS is NOT free, but like $99 (or $99.95, 99.99 something like that).

If it's actually free, and can run all windows/linux apps it'll be sweet. I'm really starting to dis-like XP and have gone back to win2k (which has it's own problems ).

[d4n13l]

I wouldn't believe the hype just yet: Dont expect it to be a $100 version of Windows XP or 2000, it is NOT 100% compatible with all Windows apps - the main target for Lindows to run is MS Office (and some other major apps). At $100 a pop, I dont think that it offers the vast majority of Windows users anything to write home about - It offers them less, for ~slightly~ less money.
Will they settle paying a few bucks less and running *some* Windows apps flawlessly and others flakily (if at all), or rather pay a little extra and have *full* software compatibilty and an OS *designed* for them (home user)?
Eg.
Gamers, dont expect it to run games very well (if at all).
VCDers, dont expect it to work better than Windows for what you do, expect worse (Hehe, MUCH worse).
Hardware support will not be up to windows standards, same goes for multimedia support.
So, will most people settle for a sub-standard MS-like OS that can run *some* MS software?
I dont think so anyway. Linux just isnt ready.
As a Linux user, I will not be buying Lindows, it's a complete waste of money where I am concerned. My view is that Linux can gain more market share by having better windows like software available for it, not just emulating windows to run a few major apps. Along with that, there are a load of other obstacle's for Linux to overcome.
It pains me to say this, but in the long run I can only see Lindows being a niche OS if at all: Probably in the business sector and maybe a few home users.
There are a lot of problems with Linux, they just dont dissappear because you can buy a $100 Linux based OS that can run _some_ MS apps... unfortunately .

PS
I hope I am wrong and Lindows gains a nice market share, I just dont see it personally. Not with Xp and 2000 out now, if it were released in the 9x era, things might be different...

[Greg12]

Is MS really evil?

I mean, imagine if they didn't exist, we'd all still be using DOS or Linux or Mac.

I don't think their evil.

I think they messed up with Windows ME but 98 was a solid product.

I mean, I can't understand DOS and it is limited.

And they do allow people to independantly develop for Windows.

MAC is the evil one, restricting their Source Code and only allowing approved apps.

[WildStyle]

Greg12,

Where have you been? Under a rock? W98 is crap! ME was a joke. 2000 is a lot better than any previous windows version, but it still has plenty of security holes on top of having compatibility issues.

I don't think MS is evil. The company is run by a very shrewd group of businessman. Money talks, and they've used it wisely.

[d4n13l]

Greg12,
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
I think they messed up with Windows ME but 98 was a solid product.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Dude, I dont know how much you have used Win98, but let me tell you - it sucks nearly as much as WinME. (*SE may be the best of the 9x bunch, but it still sucks. Compare Win98 to WinNT and you get the picture. The reason for 9x even being released is more due to political and business reasons than it being a good product. Every single member of the 9x OS family suck's as far as OS's go: Basically all of the 9x OS's are just a hacked DOS with a nice GUI. Unstable, unsecure etc, not surprising seeing it is built upon a foundation not at all suited to it's deployment.
MS have been accused of being a monopoly and in my opinion rightly so. In the long run, monopolies are bad for the consumer. That is why MS are in court defending themselves - there isn't smoke without fire. I wouldnt go as far as to say they are evil, just the situation as it stands needs rectifying. But, I do find it strange that the majority of people that call MS evil are... MS users themselves! LOL
But, MS evil?
Not really, thats just capitalism for you.
Not much different to Sony etc... but the difference is this: Imagine if you were more or less forced into buying everthing Sony to watch DVDs (for DVD compatibility or something... I dont know, this is just hypothetical ) you may want a different DVD player, other than Sony that is. Could you imagine ONLY being able to use Sony equipment AND only being able to watch Sony films? To be denied the right to buy different equipment is ultimately wrong and even more so if that equipment actually worked better than Sony's.

BTW, if MS didnt exist, we may all be using a far better OS - IBM's OS/2, which is a technically superior OS to 9x. Maybe even BeOS, which is another fine OS. I dont think IBM would have ended up being as hated as MS though, just a little less. It's still proprietry software none the same - business and politics govern the technology it produces.

Oh well, I use Linux anyways.
(Ok dual boot... just gotta get this damn winmodem changed!)
LOL


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2002-01-14 16:40:47 ]</font>

[DiViNeLeFT]

think of how much time/money it takes to put out even a substandard OS... think of all of the hardware that exist in the computing world... they have to make sure that it works with most if not all hardware... im sure as people that mostly all build our own comps or at least install new hardware ourselves that figuring out a hardware conflict is a pain in the ass. this is the reason i will always respect and like MS(yes, i did say i liked MS). i will totally agree that MS owns a huge monopoly... but you know what... they diserve it... billy has earned that fortune in my book.

oh yeah, and i almost forgot.... linux is a great OS too... if it didnt take a half hour to learn how to create a shortcut... and forget installing programs. i dont have that kind of time on my hands... lol

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DiViNeLeFT on 2002-01-14 17:01:06 ]</font>

[d4n13l]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
think of how much time/money it takes to put out even a substandard OS... think of all of the hardware that exist in the computing world... they have to make sure that it works with most if not all hardware...
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Good point.
Not that Debian is sub standard (quite the opposite in fact), but there was a recent study done on Debian Potato based on the amount of lines of code in it: It was estimated that commercially developing it all would have cost approximately 1.9 billion (US$).
<token one liner>
Not bad considering you can get it for free.
</token one liner>

As far as decent OS's go, Linux is up there with the best of them, whether it is suitable for mainstream usage is another matter entirely...

BTW, it may take 1/2 an hour (exageration!) to learn how to make a shortcut (more fittingly known as a 'symbolic link') under Linux but they are far more powerful in what they can do. Good trade off for some people.

[TurboRunner]

My oppinion I believe Your Wrong about they diserve having a monopoly and bill gates has earned that fortune.

Windows is very buggy. Every Time they release a new version of Windows or IE there are always Security Bugs and more. The Reason most Pc Users use Windows is because It has Good Hardware Support Most all games are made for Windows and alot of apps for capturing and video editing are made for windows which means people are forced to use windows.

If you use Linux there is not much you can do with it at the moment apart from typing documents and surf the net.
But what i've seen of Linux is that it's more stable.

There's no other choice cause. If somebody created an Os that could play and run all Windows Games and Applications flawlessly MicroSoft will sue their asses because Microsoft Is a Greedy Control Freak and Hates good competition as Microsoft knows that Alot of good Programmers can make better and less buggy software than MicroSoft.

Microsoft also does not respect people Privacy.

I reckon the courts should make Microsoft give Linux and other Operating System Developers the source codes to allow their O/S's to Run All Windows Apps and Games. Then People will have a choice and it should make fair competition.

Then We'll see if Microsoft can Keep ahead of the competitors or will prove to be the Weakest Link.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
i will totally agree that MS owns a huge monopoly... but you know what... they diserve it... billy has earned that fortune in my book.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TurboRunner on 2002-01-15 03:35:37 ]</font>

[oflahsp]

Why are people so obsesses with smashing the MS state. If you want a virtuous cause join Amnesty International. If you want a useful PC buy an OS that you can do the most with - Microsoft! Linux may be OK for computer types but what about those who coudn't give two hoots about computers but just need to use one withou resorting to command lines.

[pacmania_2001]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
TurboRunner wrote:

Windows is very buggy. Every Time they release a new version of Windows or IE there are always Security Bugs and more.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
This is because everyone targets MS unlike Apple or Linux. Sure they may get targeted but very rarely and didnt Mac have trouble with OS X? Also it is hard to design an OS with all the features that MS has and make it compatible with everything that is out there. I think MS has done a good job seeing that 90% of the stuff i have tried has worked. Apple can have a better OS because they are building it for a closed hardware architechture.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>

I reckon the courts should make Microsoft give Linux and other Operating System Developers the source codes to allow their O/S's to Run All Windows Apps and Games. Then People will have a choice and it should make fair competition.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Isnt that basically communism???

I think that Microsoft deserves the monopoly it has built, they are very shrewd businessman the only question was whether it was done ethically.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pacmania_2001 on 2002-01-15 04:53:23 ]</font>

[zzyzzx]

I think we benefit greatly from the standardization that results in Microsofts near monopilization of OS. When you think about it if we had several competing operating systems the price of software would be outrageous (and you wouldn't be able to copy it from so many of your friends. etc.) and we'd have much more compatibility problems than we have now.

[TurboRunner]

If there were competing Os's The prices wouldn't be outrageous because they will be undercutting each other which will mean a more afordable price.

That is the reason why Windows XP is expensive because Microsoft doesn't have any competitors to compete with so they can charge what ever they want.

Monopolies are only good for the company who owns the monopoly but not good for consumers.

If their were Other Os's that has support for all hardware on the market and could run all software then you will be able to make a choice of Os to buy and If Microsoft is that damn good they shouldn't have a problem with competition because People will buy the best user friendly stable os on the market.

Yes it is right that all software released has got a few bugs but Microsoft Charges so much for their software that it should be bug free what happens to those that don't have Internet access to get the upgrades to fix the bugs. Do they have to pay Microsoft more for the Upgrades to be delivered to them. Then their is the hassle to download the updates.


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-01-15 11:37:34, zzyzzx wrote:
I think we benefit greatly from the standardization that results in Microsofts near monopilization of OS. When you think about it if we had several competing operating systems the price of software would be outrageous (and you wouldn't be able to copy it from so many of your friends. etc.) and we'd have much more compatibility problems than we have now.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TurboRunner on 2002-01-15 23:11:21 ]</font>

[TurboRunner]

Another thing the reason why MS Are Greedy Control Freaks

Whenever a programmer makes either Linux or another os/s Be compatable to run all the software for the pc including Software that is made for MS Windows. Microsoft will try to stop that programmer from allowing their OS to run software pacifically made to run in Windows by sueing and doing what they can to stop anyone from releasing such an Os or Program.

Talk about greedy especially when Bill Gates teamed up with Compaq to Reverse Engineer the True IBM's created by IBM which started the PC Compatibles.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TurboRunner on 2002-01-15 23:36:52 ]</font>

[zzyzzx]

I think in this case a monopoly is good. Ture the OS might cost more but then you can copy all the software you want and the cost is the price of the blank CD-R's.

[d4n13l]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
TurboRunner wrote:

Windows is very buggy. Every Time they release a new version of Windows or IE there are always Security Bugs and more.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
Pacmania_2001 wrote:
This is because everyone targets MS unlike Apple or Linux.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
That doesnt make sense: If Microsoft engineer and release buggy code, that is soley down to Microsoft. I would love to hear their explanations for open sockets in the case of XP Home, the decision to make IE a shell in the case of 9x (and neglect to tell anyone), NETBIOS!!!! and why they only shipped a 'one way firewall' with XP. Oh yeah, and as to why NT only gets its much talked of security rating when it is disconnected from the network it is meant to run in.
Sure, any Microsoft made OS is a target, but that in no way means they should make themselves even MORE of an easy target. If you want to talk about what makes a secure OS, learn why the *BSD's have a good reputation. Hint: It isnt because they have a small market share and therefore less of a target.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
If you use Linux there is not much you can do with it at the moment apart from typing documents and surf the net.
But what I've seen of Linux is that it's more stable.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL, from what I gather, last time you ever saw Linux running must have been about... 5 years ago? If that is all I could do with my Linux system, I wouldnt be using it. In fact, I can do nearly as much under Linux as you can under windows if you compare average home user apps. True there is a lot more that *I* can do under Linux, but this is irrelevant from the view point of a home user so I wont go into detail.
I have used this link before, but here it is again:
www.linux-mandrake.com/en/fscreenshots.php3
Read what it says under each screenshot to see what is running (KWin TV and Real Player to name a few).
The only major difference is that Linux is a lot harder to understand. When you begin to understand how to get things to work under Linux, you realise that there is hardly anything to hold you back in what you can use it for - The only real area where it fails me is vido editing.
It is only a question of investing your time into the system to get it to perform. However, I am not pushing it as a home user OS here. Merely pointing out the fact it can do a lot more than most windows users think.
As an OS for a home user, Linux stinks! This is only down to its complexity, not much else.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2002-01-16 13:53:28 ]</font>