Lindows will do what?
They seem to have no direction anymore, which sounds a lot like the rest of the Linux community (as far as distros go). .
They seem to have no direction anymore, which sounds a lot like the rest of the Linux community (as far as distros go).
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/19200.html
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/19200.html
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
yea i was watching lindows closely for a while it sounded very pormising
then about 2 months ago it started to go really sour.
then about 2 months ago it started to go really sour.
Quote:harder than a little mp3 ceo thought it would be ehh?
-skeep
yea the thing about lindows is it is just another rehash of linux
there is nothing special about it at all anymore. Still looks like crappy old linux also.
-skeep
yea the thing about lindows is it is just another rehash of linux
there is nothing special about it at all anymore. Still looks like crappy old linux also.
First off emulators never work as well as the real mcCoy. Often emulators don't even come close (usually when a complicated hardware or software environment must be replicated). For example there has yet to be one good commercial Dos emulator for windows. There's just too much hardware to emulate, too many patents, too much know how required. Emulating windows is even more complicated, sure the hardware emulation might be easier, because you can just write a translation driver, but think of all the windows APIs for this that and the other. The reality is Wine isn't a panacea by any means. Yes Lindows is right to try to make Wine work as well as possible. In fact they need to get their act together and add DosEMU, a Dos emulator to the list of Lindows features.
I think Lindows' Ceo is right, the hardest and most screwed up thing about Unix is program installations. I mean it's hard enought to install windows programs. Sure many come with installation programs, but then afterwards you have to read a readme file and account for installer inadequacies and then when you're done you have to install x,y, and z patches. In Unix it's ten times worse. You have to figure out what programming language the app is from that you want to run, then you have to find a compiler, download it, learn to use it, and compile somebody else's source code and then place the compiled files on your own. Who has time for all that nonsense? I mean really grow some balls and write an installer already. Windows has a unified installer. Why don't Linuxians write an equivelant for Unix?
The biggest problem with Redhat, Lindows, and other distributions is that every sorry Linux programmer has to write a seperate installation package (or distribution) for each Linux flavor.
The Lindows Ceo was correct in trying to make installation easier. However he wants to charge even more money for that service, just like Redhat wants to charge for their patches. Personally I think Red Hat has the right idea we should pay for patches. That way company would actually get off their asses and fix all those errors they sent to market by rushing their products to the shelves. If I could pay 100-200 dollars a year and microsoft would spend more time fixing what they've got and less time changing it, I'd be absolutely thrilled.
I also think Lindows is changing their tune, because they have too. If they just said Lindows, it's Linux and you can run windows apps. Everyone would scream lemon, because not all windows apps will run. The future of the linux home PC is vague every company is going to have to scramble to have the best features and be in the right place at the right time.
I think Lindows' Ceo is right, the hardest and most screwed up thing about Unix is program installations. I mean it's hard enought to install windows programs. Sure many come with installation programs, but then afterwards you have to read a readme file and account for installer inadequacies and then when you're done you have to install x,y, and z patches. In Unix it's ten times worse. You have to figure out what programming language the app is from that you want to run, then you have to find a compiler, download it, learn to use it, and compile somebody else's source code and then place the compiled files on your own. Who has time for all that nonsense? I mean really grow some balls and write an installer already. Windows has a unified installer. Why don't Linuxians write an equivelant for Unix?
The biggest problem with Redhat, Lindows, and other distributions is that every sorry Linux programmer has to write a seperate installation package (or distribution) for each Linux flavor.
The Lindows Ceo was correct in trying to make installation easier. However he wants to charge even more money for that service, just like Redhat wants to charge for their patches. Personally I think Red Hat has the right idea we should pay for patches. That way company would actually get off their asses and fix all those errors they sent to market by rushing their products to the shelves. If I could pay 100-200 dollars a year and microsoft would spend more time fixing what they've got and less time changing it, I'd be absolutely thrilled.
I also think Lindows is changing their tune, because they have too. If they just said Lindows, it's Linux and you can run windows apps. Everyone would scream lemon, because not all windows apps will run. The future of the linux home PC is vague every company is going to have to scramble to have the best features and be in the right place at the right time.
snes9x was a good emulator
one of the only goo emulators i can think of.
one of the only goo emulators i can think of.
I've used lots of good console emulators. They have a high % of sucessfully emulated apps. OS/PC Platform emulators on the other hand aren't nearly as sucessful.
Lets hope they don't continue to try and convince people that logging on as root all the the time is a good idea...
Yes that's absolutely retarted, I can't back them up on that one .
-Christian
-Christian
it is true there are way too many versions of linux. Until we have some standards we are not going to have linux as a desktop os.
As long as Linux applications exist primarily as source code then it won't matter how many distributions of Linux there are because the source code will adapt to and compile on every one of them.
Sorry AS but: [rant]HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO FRIGGEN SAY THIS: [size:12]YOU DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW C TO USE APPS DISTRIBUTED AS SOURCE IN LINUX!!!!![/rant]
It is typically a simple matter of executing THREE commands (./configure; make; make install) after first uncompressing the source tarball (and of course, reading any INSTALL or README files in that tarball). Certain things, like Apache and PHP, need options to provided to the configure script manually but its generally a very simple matter.
It is typically a simple matter of executing THREE commands (./configure; make; make install) after first uncompressing the source tarball (and of course, reading any INSTALL or README files in that tarball). Certain things, like Apache and PHP, need options to provided to the configure script manually but its generally a very simple matter.
Most of the time, the code is ported for you. At least, thats how its always been for me. I know jack about C programming and have managed to compile several programs under Linux with little to no trouble (PHP and Apache2 are notoriously troublesome but all the info I've ever needed exists in the PHP online documentation) at all. You just download the tarball, uncompress it and run the run the commands to configure, compile and install it.
The only thing I can think of as to why some stuff compiles under certain distros and not others is that some distros might need certain parameters applied to the configure script (for instance, to compile PHP with Apache shared module support, you need to use the parameter --with-apxs. Apache2 shared modules require --with-apxs2) . These should be documented though, either online or in files included with the source.
The only thing I can think of as to why some stuff compiles under certain distros and not others is that some distros might need certain parameters applied to the configure script (for instance, to compile PHP with Apache shared module support, you need to use the parameter --with-apxs. Apache2 shared modules require --with-apxs2) . These should be documented though, either online or in files included with the source.
Quote:Quote:What things don't work, and what distros are you addressing? From the geeks that I know who use Linux they state that it's a very straight forward process and several of them don't know C at all.
I see alot of crabbing about it online is all... & this is what I have read about it.
Stuff about the installations not working & also porting it over is a bummer... I don't mess with it myself, only what I have seen over time as one of the "complaints" about it.
Do I have a direct quote of it, not offhand... sorry! Wish I did... I'd put it up for you to look at. It's what I recall hearing/reading online though, & that it is complex!
*
APK
People complain about things not working all the time, only to find out that if they would have read the documentation that it will work as it should. I don't put much merit into general complaints unless there is good information to back it up.
I see alot of crabbing about it online is all... & this is what I have read about it.
Stuff about the installations not working & also porting it over is a bummer... I don't mess with it myself, only what I have seen over time as one of the "complaints" about it.
Do I have a direct quote of it, not offhand... sorry! Wish I did... I'd put it up for you to look at. It's what I recall hearing/reading online though, & that it is complex!
*
APK
People complain about things not working all the time, only to find out that if they would have read the documentation that it will work as it should. I don't put much merit into general complaints unless there is good information to back it up.
Quote:As long as Linux applications exist primarily as source code then it won't matter how many distributions of Linux there are because the source code will adapt to and compile on every one of them.
Okay I'll definetly buy that. Having the source available is positively wonderful in terms of making things compatible and improving them. Truly the open source (a relative lack of commericalism) is what makes Linux, Linux. However in addition to the source there needs to be an installation app using some unified installer. Perhaps KDE and Gnome should each make their own or better still an equal opportunities team should make it and support both of the big GUIs. It's just not reasonable to require users to read readme's, download compilers, and excute a plethora of commands only to be followed by a miriad of steps. People just want to click the [Next] button a few times and have their app of choice running.
Okay I'll definetly buy that. Having the source available is positively wonderful in terms of making things compatible and improving them. Truly the open source (a relative lack of commericalism) is what makes Linux, Linux. However in addition to the source there needs to be an installation app using some unified installer. Perhaps KDE and Gnome should each make their own or better still an equal opportunities team should make it and support both of the big GUIs. It's just not reasonable to require users to read readme's, download compilers, and excute a plethora of commands only to be followed by a miriad of steps. People just want to click the [Next] button a few times and have their app of choice running.
