Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Nov 2006 18:35 UTC, submitted by wakeupneo
Oracle and SUN "I have an impressive talent for buying laptop computers hostile to Linux. Right now I'm using a Sony Vaio VGN-FS840/W, with more proprietary drivers than you can shake a stick at. It's so bad that even a retail edition of Windows XP won't run on it; you need the OEM Windows. As for Linux drivers, forget it. Sony has more important things to worry about, like recalling millions of inflammable batteries. So naturally, this machine represents quite a challenge for a Linux distro. My personal favourite, SuSE, won't run on it without a tiring vi session, trying to edit xorg.conf to get a screen to appear. But Xandros Home Edition Premium ran fine right out of the box."
Order by: Score:
Written by a Xandros employee
by Joe User on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:00 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm sure it was written by a Xandros employee...
Too weird article...Too marketing smell.

Reply Score: 5

Strange
by Buck on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:02 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

...how it turns out into a Xandros review all of a sudden. There's no mention of a laptop anywhere else in the article, or drivers, or anything genereally Linux-related.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Strange
by AdamW on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:12 UTC in reply to "Strange"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Did you miss the bold, red tag at the start of the article:

OS Review

?

Reply Score: 1

polish
by MamiyaOtaru on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:03 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

No word about how Xandros managed to be fully usable on this laptop. Presumably by being the king of included proprietary drivers. Bit of a sad day for F/OSS when a Linux distro is set apart by how much proprietary code it can cram in ;) Pragmatism, here's your distro.

the Xandros file manager handles a number of tasks, including compression and archiving, FTP, CD creation, and file sharing between Windows and *nix networks ... (I)t's clearly meant to replace a number of KDE utilities. Yet there's no need to hide or neglect to install them; it's always nice to have a choice.

I think that's missing the point of a distro like Xandros. They're lowering the amount of redundant programs in a full KDE install that give so many people an reason to dislike KDE. (my answer is not to do a full KDE install). Xandros does that for you and the reviewer doesn't like it heh. The choice is still there, all the other programs can be installed and put in the menu if one so desires.

Reply Score: 1

Why did this get posted?
by nathbeadle on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:04 UTC
nathbeadle
Member since:
2006-08-08

Sure, it started off as a great little tidbit showing that Linux triumphed in a tough environment. Great stuff! What's with the sudden distro review!? It's not even really well done and in the end Xandros is called too proprietary and "Windowsey"...the opinion takes a big shift there!

Nice tidbit but waste of an article that ends up so far off why it was initially written!!

Edited 2006-11-27 19:05

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Why did this get posted?
by bryanv on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:51 UTC in reply to "Why did this get posted?"
v RE[2]: Why did this get posted?
by nathbeadle on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Why did this get posted?"
RE[3]: Why did this get posted?
by umccullough on Mon 27th Nov 2006 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why did this get posted?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Well, this is the first reply I've had from a drunk person before.

Maybe that's cuz you have only posted 9 comments ;)

In any case, bryanv isn't drunk... he posts like that all the time ;)

Amusing, personally.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why did this get posted?
by bryanv on Tue 28th Nov 2006 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why did this get posted?"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

*hic*!

Dang, I wondered why there were so many empty bottles of guinness laying around here.

Reply Score: 0

...
by deanlinkous on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:43 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

My personal favourite, SuSE, won't run on it without a tiring vi session, trying to edit xorg.conf to get a screen to appear.
OHHHhhhh NOOOoooo!!!
ever heard of nano or nano-tiny? How tiring is pecking a little on a keyboard actually?

Indeed, it has turned out more functional on this Linux-hating computer than even a vanilla Windows installation, which is not something one expects.
Actually it is EXACTLY what should be expected. Free drivers that are included in the kernel make life a breeze. Most of my newer machines require at least about 60megs of drivers for windows, linux 0megs!

Thus we're missing the KBear FTP client, KGpg, KMplayer, Kaffeine, KPackage, the K3b CD utility, Ark, and many others.
Agree, some more apps crammed in would be nice!

This means that the panel is buzzing with little applets popping up and interrupting your work to warn you to scan for viruses and the like.
Agreed, sounds like a lot of bull-logna to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by segedunum on Tue 28th Nov 2006 12:04 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

ever heard of nano or nano-tiny? How tiring is pecking a little on a keyboard actually?

On a desktop, editing a text file is not acceptable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by h3rman on Tue 28th Nov 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

>>ever heard of nano or nano-tiny? How tiring is pecking a little on a keyboard actually?

>On a desktop, editing a text file is not acceptable.


Having to click your way through endless wizards, on the other hand, is?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by segedunum on Tue 28th Nov 2006 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Having to click your way through endless wizards, on the other hand, is?

Because a desktop is called a desktop, and because it is graphical, everything needs to be configured through a GUI or it isn't a desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by h3rman on Tue 28th Nov 2006 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

>>>On a desktop, editing a text file is not acceptable.

>>Having to click your way through endless wizards, on the other hand, is?

>Because a desktop is called a desktop, and because it is graphical, everything needs to be configured through a GUI or it isn't a desktop.

Superficially, that sounds reasonable: sure, there's the wastebin icon, so it's a "desktop", so it should all be graphical.
In reality, frankly, that sounds like GUI fundamentalism to me.
Just give me one good reason why a desktop should be "purely" graphical, instead of being, let's call it, a "hybrid" of 95% graphical and 5% CLI. Not to mention the problems of defining what "graphical" really means (is it "graphical" to search a word in Beagle or Google on your desktop? Pretty hard with just the mouse).

Well everybody has the right to dislike having to type a few words in a terminal or text editor once in a while. It rarely ever happens to me on my FC5 desktop anyway.

However, when it comes to the use of my computer, say I have to configure something unusual, I very much enjoy a simple, five line howto, where all I have to copy-paste into the terminal/gedit is just there, rather than a lengthy, 10 page screenshot slideshow, telling me where to click.

By way of example, I might mention the simplicity of installing stuff on OS X using Darwin Ports. No, that's not graphical, yet typing sudo port install mplayer looks simpler and more elegant to me than the popups that pop up after clicking your occasional ~.dmg.
Note that the "intuitive knowledge" which is assumed to exist that one should locate the downloaded .dmg (using the eyes), and double-click on it, is equally something people have to learn.
(Right there, did I just lose the right to call Mac OS X (what's more "desktop" than Mac OS X?) a "desktop"?)

But that's just a matter of taste, and it's great that one of both ways works for most of us.

Edited 2006-11-28 21:59

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by DeadFishMan on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

ever heard of nano or nano-tiny? How tiring is pecking a little on a keyboard actually?

On a desktop, editing a text file is not acceptable.


WHAT? o_O

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by segedunum on Tue 28th Nov 2006 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

WHAT? o_O

It's a stunning concept I know, but if something purports to be a desktop OS and purports to be able to do things graphically then everything in the system needs to be accessible graphically.

This is something that many people who think that Linux is ready as a desktop OS do not understand. If it doesn't have a decent straightforward GUI then you can't do it on a desktop - end. That's the whole point of a desktop.

Reply Score: 1

Idiotic...
by tomcat on Mon 27th Nov 2006 21:16 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Right now I'm using a Sony Vaio VGN-FS840/W, with more proprietary drivers than you can shake a stick at. It's so bad that even a retail edition of Windows XP won't run on it; you need the OEM Windows. As for Linux drivers, forget it. Sony has more important things to worry about, like recalling millions of inflammable batteries. So naturally, this machine represents quite a challenge for a Linux distro.

Clue phone: You actually need drivers in order to interact with proprietary devices?!? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... /SARCASM

Reply Score: 0

And then...
by Buck on Mon 27th Nov 2006 21:54 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

I can't understand what makes Xandros so different, are they providing in-house designed drivers or what? The situation should be pretty much the same on any Linux distro of comparable freshness. After all, we're talking about core OS here, not XP themes...

Reply Score: 1

Someone slap this guy with a cluestick
by abraxas on Tue 28th Nov 2006 02:22 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

It's so bad that even a retail edition of Windows XP won't run on it; you need the OEM Windows (and sure enough, Sony is too cheap to include the CD), or you need to go to the Sony support site, download all of the drivers, and make your own supplement CD.

Wow, the author is clueless. Windows does not install all the drivers for anything but the oldest (XP capable) PCs. The OEM Windows CD he speaks of is actually most likely a recovery CD and not actually a Windows disk. That's how most companies do it these days. OEM Windows CDs are nearly identical to Retail editions save the license key.

Xandros Home Edition Premium ran fine right out of the box. Indeed, it has turned out more functional on this Linux-hating computer than even a vanilla Windows installation, which is not something one expects.

What is so "Linux-hating" about a laptop that is all Intel? The drivers are all open source and in the kernel. That's about as simple as it gets.

Reply Score: 4

h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

Maybe a coincidence?
I was/am not a Xandros fan at all, but after trying (in vain) to install FC5, Xubuntu+Ubuntu, PCBSD, and Freespire, on a 1999 Tulip laptop, only Xandros worked at once and flawlessly, to this day (Yes I do know my way around burning isos and checksums, and adjusting a few text files).

I admit, Debian Sarge, DSL, and Feather did work at once too, but all had frequent, inexplicable X-crashes. Suse 9.3 had mouse problems, but worked too, albeit way too slowly.
I now did change my hobby though; since the machine works, my dad has had it. ;)

I think we can say that although Xandros is not for the FSF diehard or *n*x geek, it is a quite stable, usable and polished system for those who don't care for huge and up-to-date software repositories.

Reply Score: 1