OSNews:

not true!!!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:12:00 GMT

Longhorn will run on medium range computers of today, however, you will get stuck with none of the features taht make it longhorn including Aero. rather, you will have a win 2k look and feel.

Re: everyone will be sick of the subject

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:13:00 GMT

Who here isn't already sick of the subject?

Hardware

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:14:00 GMT

I don't want to buy new hardware just to run stupid lONGHORN and I don't care about these graphical effects. I think that you'll need 10GB of RAM and some GeForce 10 to run pacman, in few years time

Micro$oft Has Seen Better Days

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:21:00 GMT

Micro$oft is seeing its end days as a software company. They know this, which is why they are branching out into new markets like games and hardware.

Linux is moving forward very quicky. I don't expect it will completey take over the Desktop market, but I bet it will put a huge dent in it.

Moreover, Legislation is being drafted right now to protect free software. At his point, any move that MS makes against Linux will be seen another reason to get away from the Monopoly.

...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:23:00 GMT

This is where Linux comes in. By the time Longhorn comes out Windows 98 (the latest Microsoft operating system that will run on sub 600 mHz machines comfotably) will be almost a decade old.

Uhm, I've been running XP/Server 2003 on a 400 MHz Pentium II with 256 quite comfortably...

Um...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:24:00 GMT

Why is this opinion by a 19 year self proclaimed linux novice considered "news" on osnews.com?

Can we have SOME kind of restraint on the junk you throw up on this website?

....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:26:00 GMT

Microsoft is influencing the product lines of companies that base their product lines on Linux such as Suse and Sun. It would be imposible for Longhorn to whipe out Linux willingly especially for people in Asia, China, and Europe, however Longhorn might dominate North America, although not completely. Longhorn does not give you any control, so it is inferior technology, but Microsoft relies heavily on entertainment, and most people want nothing more than to be entertained, and most people make bad choices for themselves, it's their lifestlye, the majority of people are not owners.

Microsoft will use Linux

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:33:00 GMT

Basically, all they will have to do, will be to download the latest Fedora Core ~8, change all the logos to microsoft, and distribute it as Windows light... but maybe that's not all that bad...

Longhorn requirements

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:34:00 GMT

Longhorn's prelimanary requirements from Microsoft

dual 6 ghz processors,
2 gig's of Ram
a 3D card 150% faster than is currently available.
one TERAbyte of hard drive space.

I don't know what MS is planning on putting in all that space, maybe keep one or two active backups of the OS to keep viruses at bay?? be able to revert in a hurray in case of file coruption. Or maybe WINFS will need the extra space to store the meta data in a database.

As for running win2003 or winXP which is it? They are two seperate products. Also Linux allows(most of the time) to leave the eye candy turned on, something you probally don't have running. Win XP will run on that if you turn off just about all the toys that make it XP.

:)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:34:00 GMT

Am I the only one that thinks the rest of the OS is ugly ... and not JUST the sidebar?

Sub 600 MHz machines and otherwise good points

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:34:00 GMT

First - fine and interesting piece. I like your advice to Linux community: "Make it simple". I want Linux to succeed - not necessarily destroy Windows, do we want choice or not?!? - but frankly Windows is often easier. Even faster. And it is hard to argue with Server 2003!

Second - with regard to Win98 actually WinXP Pro runs quite nicely on several sub-600 Mhz machines we use around here. My P3 450 at home. A P2 400 laptop. A Celeron 400 desktop. And so on... As long as it has plenty of RAM WinXP runs if anything faster than Win98. (RAM not speed is more important, I think.)

Linux on K6-2 Laptop

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:38:00 GMT

The author is right that Linux will run more than acceptably on older hardware. I am running Mandrake Linux 9.1 on a Compaq Presario 1255 laptop. It has an AMD K6-2 333MHz processor and (I think) 32 Meg of RAM. It installed flawlessly and recognized all the laptop's hardware. It is slow starting up, but once booted, the speed is more than adequate.

RE: Longhorn requirements

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:41:00 GMT

The "requirements" are not correct. They are projections on how a computer might be configured in 2007. The requirements will probably be much lower. I would be surprised if Longhorn doesn't run perfectly well on my current machine, a 2,8 ghz P4.

Re: Um...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:42:00 GMT

AGREED! This is news? I didn't see it on reg, inq, or /. or even reuters... I realize you can submit articles but this is hardly news. It is more an opinion of the market, if anything.

Sounds like a 7th grade school essay. This article is all over the place! The smartest thing he said was:

[QUOTE]
And maybe scallops are flyin' outa me pants.
[/QUOTE]

Hah!

- jstn

Huh??

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:43:00 GMT

Generally progress should mean that not only does something look better, the performance is snappier as well.

What causes you to think this? It has never been the case in the past. Never. Pick any operating system, Windows, Apple, Solaris, Linux, AIX, Netware, any one. With every new version of every one of these operating systems there has been an increased system requirement, most especially with Windows. Windows 3.1 required a 286 with 4MB of RAM and 20 MB of disk space. Today you would be crazy not to have at least a 800MHz Pentium with 128MB of RAM and preferably more more more for Windows XP. As for disk space, most opearting systems today, want at least 2GB for a basic installation. All this and XP on a 2GHz processor is slower than Windows 3.1 on a 386.

Netware 3.x would allow you to serve files and printing for 25-50 users with 8-16MB of RAM. Today, Netware 6.5 won't even install with less than 100MB and good luck serving that many users with so little RAM. 500MB is more realistic.

Even Linux once famous for its stingy use of system resources, increases its system requirements with every iteration. Where once a 286 and 16MB was quite adequate today a 500Mhz Pentium and 128MB is the sane starting point. Some systems won't even start X11 with less than 92MB and at 92MB the performance will be very frustrating. Disk space? For a desktop system you better have at least 2GB but 10+ is a better start.

The fact of the matter is that with each new version of todays operating systems, new features and services are added. Naturally, these features and services consume more resources thereby requiring better hardware. Then there is the fact that developers are using higher level languages today that are less resource efficient. Where once developers would go to assembly and optimize to make the code as compact and fast as possible, today they produce bloatware and say things like "disk space is cheap" or "RAM is cheap". The hardware may indeed be cheaper than it use to be but, I don't think that this is an excuse for a web browser or mail client to require 40 megs of disk space and I won't even go into the bloated and slow office suites.

If I...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:45:00 GMT

piss in the snow half a sentence that includes the words Windows and Linux, can I get it published here?

Not likely...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:46:00 GMT

The biggest hole in the author's argument is the fact that most people will only go out and buy a new OS when their old computers are shot. They will run Win98/ME/XP until the computer dies. When that happens they will buy new computers with Longhorn installed. That's they way it has happened in the past and I see no reason for that to change in the future. The only way for Linux to displace MS is if Linux comes preinstalled on computers from a big manufacturer, and not just from a special page on their website. When a company like Dell allows you to not only configure the hardware but pick the OS too, then you will see Linux gain a considerable marketshare, especially if having Linux preinstalled cost less than getting the computer with Windows preinstalled.

re Um...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:47:00 GMT

hehe good one

RE: Peragrin

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:50:00 GMT

As for running win2003 or winXP which is it? They are two seperate products. Also Linux allows(most of the time) to leave the eye candy turned on, something you probally don't have running. Win XP will run on that if you turn off just about all the toys that make it XP.

Uhm-- no you are wrong there. I always install WindowBlinds or StyleXP. Still, XP/Server 2003 run mighty fine on the 400 MHz Pentium. Try to be more informed next time; it's mostly RAM that matters, not the processor speed. Antoher example: My parents' 500 MHz AMD K6 runs XP Pro just fine, it's mainly Office 2003 (they don't do much more than Outlook/Word/IE) slowing this machine down. And yes, this machine runs WindowBlinds as well (I didn't want my parents to experience Luna )

And my next test will come after I upgrade my notebook's memory; right now it's a 366 MHz Pentium 2 with only 64 MBRAM, running NT4.0, but I want more

Desktop market....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:52:00 GMT

Well, I personally think Longhorn is not going to go well for MS. It is already Over Budget and Delayed... I have been using Debian as my primary system for a year. Ohh also I work tech support for Clayton College and State University. I work with windows on a daily basis. I see longhorn making more problems then It will be fixing. But I do not see Linux gain the majority of the desktop market. I think it will win the server market, and development platform.

...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:52:00 GMT

Last post, continued:
It appears to me a lot of people are misinformed about XP's system requirements... Probably has to do with the "M$-is-always-bad-and-the-devil-and-bill-gates-eats-children" thing.

Does the 'L' in Longhorn Stand for Linux?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:53:00 GMT

Seriously, I see a desktop like KDE, the easy development and scripting features, toolkits like Qt (the Qt 4 plans are interesting), development environments like Mono or Java, the good work on freedesktop on the X server, D-BUS, Cairo and HAL and I have come to an inescapable conclusion.

With the right level of vision and integration work (and that's the killer) we can have much of what Microsoft claims is innovative in Longhorn up and running, on today's hardware (there's a lot of really redundant 3D hardware in many organizations), today. Not in two, three or four years time - now. That's no joke, because the infrastructure is actually there.

Since many companies are still using NT 4 and 2000 (which Microsoft hailed as the technology for the next ten years) and are grappling with support issues for their existing VB5 (Microsoft withdrew support and that was bad enough) and VB6 apps, they've got more than enough on their plate than looking at the swish new Windows with features that they're just not capable of using. I don't just mean that in a hardware sense, because there is a serious amount of core business logic that no one is going to move. Longhorn may sound swish, but if the responsibility fell on your shoulders to move all of the custom applications over could you be bothered?

IT has reached a critical mass in terms of being part of the infrastruture of an organization. How often does your employer rip out all of their phones, replace the photocopiers and fax machines and replace the furniture? They do it very sparingly, if ever, and they never do mass big-bang migrations or updates. That is what Microsoft is facing, because upgrades in this environment are better suited to support and services deals and contracts, not mass sales of boxes of software. As well as the software, Microsoft is asking companies to fund support, upgrade and development contracts, all to upgrade to a new OS? It may have been realistic five or more years ago, it isn't now.

If Microsoft were a bit disappointed with XP they'll be really disappointed with Longhorn. It is not that people don't want to, it is just that the pace of change is much slower (we have phones from the 1980s in our place and they work fine), people can't be bothered and in many cases, people just can't.

Home upgrades?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:54:00 GMT

"Which might not be that big of a deal for a home user who upgrades every couple of years anyway"

The average, non-geek, home users I know DO NOT upgrade their systems every couple of years. They are typically still using Win98 on PII or Celeron PCs.

Re: [Eclipse] (IP: gregholman) - Posted on 2004-05-19 20:21:09

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:54:00 GMT

Micro$oft is seeing its end days as a software company.

You really have a weak grasp of reality. They are too powerful to disapear so quickly in the face of what boils down to the Linux hype machine.

They know this, which is why they are branching out into new markets like games and hardware.

Again, wow you're delusional. They have always tried to branch out when they could or felt the need, and Linux has absolutely nothing to do with this. Big companies don't stay big by standing still.

Linux is moving forward very quicky. I don't expect it will completey take over the Desktop market, but I bet it will put a huge dent in it.

In some areas, Linux is indeed moving fast. In others, it will forever lag behind. Patents, the divisive development ideologies, and stubbourn leaders who refuse to simple things like use kernel debuggers to help with the quality control process. Granted, in poorer countries, or those that are only now begining to rise to power, open source software will likely seep into all aspects of computing life, because of the general distrust of Americans, and American businesses, but in North America it'll be a while before there is any worthwhile dent in the desktop market.

Moreover, Legislation is being drafted right now to protect free software.

It's a sad state of affairs, but companies like Microsoft own quite a few more politicians than the free software and open source movements can currently muster. Don't forget that IBM is only in it for the money, and they'd leave you all out in the cold in an instant if it really suited their purposes.

At his point, any move that MS makes against Linux will be seen another reason to get away from the Monopoly.

Business is business, and every one of them takes steps to attack the competition, monopoly or not. I don't like Microsoft any more than many people here, but you know what they say, survival of the fittest. I'm sure that both proprietary and open software will both be around for a very long time to come, with niether gaining more than a mere temporary advantage over the other.

wrong

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:55:00 GMT

Re:

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:56:00 GMT

Uhm, I've been running XP/Server 2003 on a 400 MHz Pentium II with 256 quite comfortably...

Yer you can run it, but it all depends on whether you do anything with it .

Re: If I...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:56:00 GMT

I agree, this is hardly worthy, but if the same author said he strongly thinks Linux is ready to take on longhorn it probably would have been accepted as a creditable source.

I don't get why he bothered writing his opinion if he had so few points to convey.

...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:02:00 GMT

Microsoft is in the computainment industry and it will succeed, that is obvious. There will be millions of victoms, those people that learn to reuse their product line.

Personally I'll stay with Linux. I will not even try Longhorn because I have no interest in computainment. In fact I'm insulted by it.

. . .

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:04:00 GMT

Well, 1. people aren't going to change the OS on their decade old machines any more than they are going to upgrade them. Their old software does what they need. 2. Linux's minimum requirements aren't that low. The minimum requirements for Fedora and Windows XP are quite comperable. As Linux progresses toward Longhorn's release date, it's minimum requirements will increase to match Longhorns unless it fails to match features. 3. The author suggests a minimal GUI. He then compares this to Longhorn with all the bells and whistles enabled. You can turn off some of the bells and whistles in Longhorn for one. For another, you just can't compare Windows to a non-Gnome/KDE window manager for Linux. There are many nice window managers for Linux. Many of them are faster than KDE and Gnome, but those are the two that are used because they have the features.

The fact is that Linux has an oppertunity here, but not the one that he is providing. Sure, there are some geeks that will keep their old equipment using minimal GUIs and such, but that's going to be a small subset of the current Linux group. The oppertunity that Linux has is to catch up to Windows in the areas that it lacks. They aren't huge gaps. Small things like making package management palateable to novices.

Yes

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:09:00 GMT

I couldn't agree more with the rise of bloatware these days.

With around 10 or so tabs open, Mozilla Firefox takes upwards of 70-80 megs of ram. That is simply unacceptable when Opera, a browser with many more features, takes only 34 megs of ram with the EXACT SAME PAGES OPEN. I'm not an opera fanboy, and I'm not a mozilla hater - if Firefox used this little ram, I would use it over Opera any day - but this amount of ram usage is simply unacceptable.

....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:19:00 GMT

If the developer learned how to build a Linux system from scratch independant of any vendor, than he would have gained much more power than anything that Longhorn could ever provide, because Longhorn does not give you control, and that is the key difference.

I'm a GPL zealot

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:19:00 GMT

Thom wrote
"M$-is-always-bad-and-the-devil-and-bill-gates-eats-children"

This is true Thom and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
Immidietly nuke all those MS systems you mentioned and install alternative OS's instead.(read be,sky,bsd,linux)
The dark ages are soon over and liberation will come.

Ziggamon wrote
Basically, all they will have to do, will be to download the latest Fedora Core ~8, change all the logos to microsoft, and distribute it as Windows light... but maybe
that's not all that bad...

Nooooooo! Even not MS can be this evil.
If this happened I write my own kernel.

[Eclipse] wrote
Micro$oft is seeing its end days as a software company. They know this, which is why they are branching out into new markets like games and hardware.

Hmm.. someone with a clear mind. I like [ECLIPSE], also in developing software that will put Longhorn in Ballmers closet.

Re: wrong

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:34:00 GMT

thats wrong. kde mem requirements has gone down

Has it? Really? Well, KDE2 could run on a Pentium 90 with 32MB RAM. I'd love to see you run KDE 3.2.2 on such a system.

But, all that aside, KDE is NOT an operating system. My post was about operating systems. KDE is a Desktop Environment that runs on top of X11. X11, by the way is by itself presently occupying 36MB of RAM on the system that this meesage was composed on and there are only two windows open.

RE: Huh??

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:36:00 GMT

"It has never been the case in the past. Never. Pick any operating system, Windows, Apple, Solaris, Linux, AIX, Netware, any one. With every new version of every one of these operating systems there has been an increased system requirement, "

Didn't know there was an Apple OS? Damn, all these years I've been stuck with the Mac OS....

Let the marketplace decide

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:37:00 GMT

It doesn't matter what I believe or fail to believe. Let the marketplace decide on the "other platform" vs. Linux argument.

People don't change as fast as marketing companies, like the one that produces the "other platform", would like for them to. Marketing can only go so far as cognitive limits will allow. It's sort of like the Soda Wars back in the 80s. One person likes one thing while someone else another.

Personally, I like pure spring water with a lemon slice. It's easier on the kidneys.

Anyways, back to the real subject. Most people, notice I said most, not geeks like us, like sticking with their old equipment. Especially if they built their own system. Sort of like a well cared for Classic car. Most business will, unless they really like spending funds, what I call cash bleed, will adopt the path of reducing total cost of management and ownership.

The CEO of the marketing company that produces the "other platform" sits at the pinnacle of his respective company and has the luxury of "thinking" that everyone "loves" his brand of "soda". While down in the trenches of the local communites around the world, where money is stretched to the highest degree, reality of licensing is setting in.

So I say, as many have said, "Let the marketplace decide."

Re: ...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:48:00 GMT

"It appears to me a lot of people are misinformed about XP's system requirements... Probably has to do with the "M$-is-always-bad-and-the-devil-and-bill-gates-eats-children" thing."

You seem to come to MS's defense a lot on this site. I wonder if you'll still be doing that if MS does to SkyOS what they did to BeOS.

re: duke

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 21:54:00 GMT

Hey duke, you go to umass eh? i also live in MA =)

RE: Warren Merrit

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:05:00 GMT

You seem to come to MS's defense a lot on this site. I wonder if you'll still be doing that if MS does to SkyOS what they did to BeOS.

I don't come to MS defence (damn, people on OSNews.com have been accusing me of that since day one), it's just that i try to see everything from an objective point of view. And, when I'm being subjective, I always let that be known. Sometimes I honestly think I'm too "Dutch" for this site... I'm so used to saying what I want I almost forget that in most countries you're not even allowed to cuss on televison

Whether you like it or not, I'll be around for a while

Report abuse

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:13:00 GMT

Eugenia, this is the second article in three days that I feel abuses of my intelligence. Really. Sorry.

hmmm

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:13:00 GMT

Well, I don't long for the upcoming Longhorn or any Microsoft OS, I am quite happy with Linux/BSD. I recently built a cheap box (1.6 Duron, 256 ddr, 60gb, 32mb ati), and do not plan to upgrade for at least half a decade (barring hardware failure). This system is way more than enough to satisfy my computing needs (development, "light" games, surfing and etc). A system with 3 ghz or more is probably an overkill for me.

Minimum requirements

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:32:00 GMT

Just a thought for those who think Longhorn will be "unusable" on < 3ghz computers. I am quite sure you are wrong, the last part of Longhorns development cycle will be spent doing a lot of optimizations and tweaks, to existing code. So I am betting you can run Longhorn "comfortable" without all bells and whistles on a 1,5ghz system.

...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:37:00 GMT

You Linux fanboys are so adorable!

Longhorn Vs Linux

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:00 GMT

I would like to make some points.

I think Linux and windows will have a very different uses in future. I do think that the fair competition will bring a speed on OS development. There is no question that both will make our life easier and better and finally (mean it) finally give a so choices!

Hardware Specs for Longhorn and Windows

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:57:00 GMT

Just checked nearest computer store: cheapest desktop computer has 2.7 GHz processor. Today!

I am sure that by 2005-2006 not only 64-bit will be a mantra, but finding anything less than 3.2GHz in big computer store will be similar to finding EISA network cards in it today.

Microsoft is American company. It firstly targets American market. One that today offers 2.7 GHz CPU for email, chat, Web browsing, personal finances management and working with Office software.

The same job I can currently do very comfortable on my P-III 500 MHz with 256 MB RAM running Windows XP.
That is a hint for those who are confused about requirements for XP.

RE: Thom Holwerda

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:59:00 GMT

I met many dutchmen Thom and they say what they want.
I don't think you are an MS puppy but it's still not going to change my opinion.
It's just that it is damn hard for some people to discuss MS seriously.(including me)
Good to see that you are not being scared of us.

zealot

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 23:09:00 GMT

Im a windows zealot!! im a windows zealot!!! linux sucks!!! microsoft all the way!!!! go windows!! go bill gaytes!!! yay!!!!!! Linux sucks!!

RE: zealot

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 23:28:00 GMT

"Im a windows zealot!! im a windows zealot!!! linux sucks!!! microsoft all the way!!!! go windows!! go bill gaytes!!! yay!!!!!! Linux sucks!!"

Wow, you sound like many Linux zealots I have heard...

Anyways, I find that many people are not very informed on the system requirements of Longhorn... Maybe this is on purpose to spread anti Microsoft FUD, but who knows. I would think that everyone is smart enough to realize that even if you turn off all the GUI effects for slow systems on Longhorn, you will still have a very different OS under the hood. Funny how right now, aside from the start menu, my Windows XP looks almost identical to my Windows 98 box, yet they behave so different. Maybe some are just afraid that Microsoft has a real Linux killer on their hands, and will do what it takes, even skewing some facts to make their Linux religion look superior.

RE: Warren Merrit

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 23:38:00 GMT

"I don't come to MS defence (damn, people on OSNews.com have been accusing me of that since day one), it's just that i try to see everything from an objective point of view. And, when I'm being subjective, I always let that be known. Sometimes I honestly think I'm too "Dutch" for this site... I'm so used to saying what I want I almost forget that in most countries you're not even allowed to cuss on televison

Whether you like it or not, I'll be around for a while "

I wasn't saying you should get lost or anything, just that you seem unusually sympathetic toward what's probably your biggest competitor. This could just be a misperception by some of us here. But just out of curiousity, how much space you have on the hard drive of that 433mhz box?

I dont know about...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 23:48:00 GMT

It doesn't seem like Microsoft will ever be beaten. At least not for a loooong time. As pointed out earlier in this thread most people don't upgrade there OS on there computer. They just get a new one when theres dies, and it comes preloaded with windows. The only way Linux will have a chance to take some more market share is to be preloaded on, say, dells, and play all the games windows does. The ease of use is not really a factor; SuSE and Linspire are very easy to use; one does not have to use Gentoo and Slackware.

Now im done with the logic.
Microsoft Windows is THE WORST OS ever!!!!! I hope all computers running it crash and loose all there data. Longhorn SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.net

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 23:48:00 GMT

you can correct me if im wrong im not that good with .net.
but it worries me i made a simple window with a button that closes the window when you push it. after running the app it took 12mb ram. and thats much for such simple application.

ofcourse that could be the sandbox maby larger applications dont use that much ram. but if they do longhorn is going to eat alot of ram.

RE: I dont know about...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 19 May 2004 23:55:00 GMT

Go mark! Yeah..

This is the last time I will post in a thread that discusses MS products,honestly.
Zealot or not I just can't be objective.

longhorn requirements....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 00:06:00 GMT

isn't this version of windows the one that will be incorporating palladium, which will require new hardware for full functionality anyway?

RE:Not likely...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 00:22:00 GMT

" When a company like Dell allows you to not only configure the hardware but pick the OS too, then you will see Linux gain a considerable marketshare, especially if having Linux preinstalled cost less than getting the computer with Windows preinstalled."

Which begs the question of WHY any oem like Dell would be the slightest bit interested in supporting yet another OS?
If you offer it; you also support it...
Dell attempted this with Redhat a couple years ago and absolutely failed horribly at it. It will take a lot of effort to get them to do this again as it likely cost them a ton of cash.

RE:RE:Not likely...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 00:31:00 GMT

so why dont work with redhat to make a dell specific distro ??
and get a proper linux support team rather then just use the windows support guyz to support linux users can you imagine that,

"hello, i have a problem setting up X, tech guy: restart the computer and press F8" :p

Dumb advice

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 01:04:00 GMT

I found the advice and the general arguments extremely weak and obviously biased. First of all, to me, it seems that the author just didn't get it. He is complaining about the interface, taking space, etc... That's not a big issue now, we don't know how the final interface will look like. They are spending billions of dollars for research, I am sure they will have a better idea on usability than the author and me. Obviously for the author there is no risk, he can say all he wants, but he has to make it logical. In this case I think he is focusing on a nonissue. The main issue here is the support for developers, the third party people. Those are the ones who really add too much value to the OS. Also the old hardware will be an issue. I don't want to upgrade either, but when I realize that I can do certain things much more faster than I do now, I wouldn't think twice in upgrading. That's really the rule here. If the productivity gain is "good enough" then why not upgrade. Old hardware will be there always, but noone is going to go with Linux just because it can run on that hardware. I guess people do not realize this, but running open office on that old hardware takes resources.

It's sad ...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 01:07:00 GMT

...but the truth is that Microsoft have too much power.

They can do anything they want, have money, governement help (MS is a big taxes bussines with influences), etc.

Rememeber, MS have recognized it's use of monopoly. They killed BeOS, said I'm sorry, I shoot you and thats kill you but take this bucks. But the matter is that Be Inc. is death.

Settled or not the result in that point was that there will not be more Be Inc. to compete.

Realy I fear Microsoft use of market position (against consumers, yes the actual state of things are as Microsoft likes). Really they can do this again with any company (kill, buy, silence, etc... -alo alternatives-) it is the MS way.

And for open source, they can't buy it, but with patents or things like paladium the cusmtomer choice (a la XBOX or modchip to get other thing working) and security will be very compromissed (what your computer do?, you don't know, you really don't know, you trusth in the MS tecnology behind it). With open source software at least exist the code review posibility.

For requirements, be realistic, if you want to everything looks better it will increase requirements, on any platform.

Now I work on a PIII 1 GH and 128 Ram win XP, but it feels slow and yerky, I tried install .NET runtime on it and it died, become unusable.

I run very satisfying Mandrake 9.2 on a eMachine 400ix (Celeron 400, 128 Ram and 20 GB hd), but Win XP was unusable there.

I hade noticed that in most of cases the change to Windows or Upgrade come related to a Hardware change (new computer). With old hardware are fewer cases for conscientious Windows Upgrade (atached to a hardware update of course).

The most of people don't care what are they using, if you puts something that simply works they get happy. I have to reinstall my counsins computer at least 4 times at year every year, they used Windows Millenium, new brand computer with XP and the same thing. They don't know how to do fix or configure it, even mail, internet and preferences need to be tweaked for somebody else. When they try to do something by themselves (like install some hardware), bye bye computer.

The same is for Linux (some configurations are cruel to do, find, fix).

The advantage difference for Microsoft success rely on their Tactics on market -preinstall and exclusivity enforcements - and the actual general knowledgement about it.

For Linux success the general support and knowledgement for linux everywhere is needed (Everybody know a little about windows -like reboot your box to get it working again -, but for Linux in the real world most lambs don't even know what it is, means).

You really need internet connection to solve some obscure things in Linux, in the masses or third world countries the internet 24/7 still is not a reality. This also applies to microsoft (windows update) but if you aren't on internet it's harder to catch a virus (Cry if you are geting infected files using other media).

hopefully Longhorn will be better.....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 01:24:00 GMT

Now not to dissapoint several people that have already posted here, I do want to add something....

Out of all the OSes that i've tried (eg: linux, beos, macos) Windows has ALWAYS been the OS that has given me the most trouble. When I actually have it on my hard drive WinXP has crashed at least once every 6 months or so. Now with Longhorn comming who knows when, but when it actually does come out I really don't expect it to be any different. Adding features and flashy interfaces aren't the ways that oses should innovate. They should have been innovative in usability and stability.

Hopefully Longhorn will be better. The only reason I say that is that because Microsoft has the mojority of the os market share. And because of this I only hope that users can have a better computer experience that Microsoft has yet provided.

Viruses and Worms

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 01:26:00 GMT

"Whatever you call it, the point is that you can have a modern operating system on top of outdated hardware and still have a machine that will do exactly what you want, and not be prey to all the viruses and worms that are sure to crop up on an OS which is never patched again."

It has already been stated plenty already that you can run Windows XP on older sub 600mhz systems but one thing I didn't hear mention'd was the whole virus/worm issue.

I am a huge Linux supporter but the one thing I can not stand is to constantly hear fan boys running around yelling that you should use Linux because it's more safe from viruses and worms. This statement is just untrue. Sure there are a lot of security issues with Windows but what do you expect from an operating system that runs on 70% or more of the worlds desktop computers?

There are tons of holes in plenty of Linux flavors out there the only reason why you don't hear about them all the time is because Linux doesn't run on 70% or more of the worlds desktop computers. If it did you would hear just as much of an uproar if not more. There is no perfect operating system. If you are gonna shout to the crowd about why they should switch to Linux OS's instead of Windows at least give them valid points.

Also until there is one unified Linux OS out there it will just be to confusing for your average business or desktop user to switch. There are just to many choices, to many cooks in the kitchen if you will, which is another reason why Microsoft will remain dominant in the OS feild for the coming years

I am a Windows user ...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 01:40:00 GMT

And personally, Longhorn is really irrevalent as far as I'm concerned. I am currently learning C# and I guess from the point of view of a budding developer, I am excited about having .NET as the main API.
But from a user's point of view, I could give a shit about Longhorn. I use Windows instead of Linux because I think it has better applications for what I use the computer for, and that's not likely to change in the near future. So, whether Longhorn comes out 4 months from now or 4 years from now really doesn't matter to me, because the apps will continue to get better even if the OS stays stagnent. And I don't care how powerful or elegant Linux becomes in the next few years - unless they get some decent apps or are able to get Wine in shape, I'll use it for tinkering and server stuff only.

A few things about Windows XP:
- Runs great on my P3-450 w/192MB of RAM. The only app that is slow to me is Firefox (an open source app, go figure)
- I can make it faster and stable than ANY Linux distro running Gnome/KDE
- It is possible (and quite trivial) to run Windows worm/trojan/virus/spyware free.

less hardware for specific task

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:04:00 GMT

Linux will always require less hardware and the simple explanation is that unix/linux operating systems are designed in modules:
you want a simple web server:
All you need is a slim kernel (new or old) and apache (new or old) this will run easily on a 32 meg P100

Win 2003 needs at leas a 500 mhz P3 with 256 megs of ram to accomplish this.

But the point of looking at minimum requirenments is to see same performance on a minimum spec.

Now upgrade the server to the a nice server: say a Quad Opteron 2.2Gh with 64 gig or ram.

Now you will see that the the linux on the same setup will be able to hanndle twice as many reqests as Win2003

This is simply because you don't need a fancy GUI for a web server, Media player, IE, outlook express, activeX, directX, etc etc etc...

Re: YES

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:19:00 GMT

With around 10 or so tabs open, Mozilla Firefox takes upwards of 70-80 megs of ram. That is simply unacceptable when Opera, a browser with many more features, takes only 34 megs of ram with the EXACT SAME PAGES OPEN. I'm not an opera fanboy, and I'm not a mozilla hater - if Firefox used this little ram, I would use it over Opera any day - but this amount of ram usage is simply unacceptable.

You're obviously misinterpreting your memory usage. You need to look at the VIRTUAL SIZE (VSZ) not resident set size (RSZ).
It's the same on Windows. Enable the virtual size column under the task manager.

RE: 'The OS doesn't matter!'

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:24:00 GMT

The OS will only cease to matter in any significant aspect one crossplatform languages learn to take advantage of native features (IE, not Java) and still run crossplatform with decent speed.

'Cuz as long as I can code an app on OSX that can do something XP can't, .

KDE

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:45:00 GMT

"Has it? Really? Well, KDE2 could run on a Pentium 90 with 32MB RAM. I'd love to see you run KDE 3.2.2 on such a system."

Yes it has. There were huge memory improvements between the KDE 2.x versions [which i didn't find very smooth on my P2/400 with 128 MB RAM] and early KDE 3.x versions. IIRC this is addressed in the KDE FAQ too. I cannot speak for the latest KDE 3.x versions though.

The same is true for Mozilla Firefox versus Netscape 7

win vs linux

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:48:00 GMT

People avoid change that is all there is to it. My brother has tried for years to get me to go linux so a couple of months ago I said ok. You know what there are too many flavors of linux. It took me for ever to choose one. When I would ask for advice it seemed like people were talking out of their butts. I actuall got "redhat's awesome" as an answer. what does that say? I installed for different distros each had it's own quirks so my knowledge of the last one didn't help with the next. It was so frusterating to not understand it instantly that I would move on to the next distro hoping that it would be more "intuative." Fact is that to someone who has worked with windows their whole life not much of linux is intuative. It just different enough that you get lost even though to someone who is familliar with it it's nothing. My point is people aren't going to just say, "Oh I heard that linux is really good so I'm going to change everything that has been working for me up until now." I would probably be running linux right now if I had had my brother around to help me. But I didn't all the conversion stories I have ever heard go something like: "So I installed linux on my grandma's computer and showed her how to email and write stuff in abiword. She loves it and it's never crashed." That's great but with a one on one requirment it's going to take linux a while to conquer the world. AS for me I went back to xp which has never given me a problem unless I was messing with something that I no nothing about and shouldn't have been doing. That's right no freezes no crashes nothing coming up on two years. Like I said at the beginning people don't like to change and as a people the change to linux was hard enough that I missed all the benefits that people talk about and was frusterated that I couldn't do anything. I went from an person who feels in control of his computer to a person who doesn't know a thing about his computer just by putting linux on it. I've been snowboarding for years now don't expect me to become a skiier and have to learn everything over again because you tell me it's better.

@ Kim

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:49:00 GMT

"Old hardware will be there always, but noone is going to go with Linux just because it can run on that hardware."

Hello!

(-1 generalisation and you haven't taken his argument regarding old hardware in account)

"I guess people do not realize this, but running open office on that old hardware takes resources."

Really? I'd say so too, but then again who's talking about OO.org? You just mention that, how about XFce4 for example, which the author stated? Abiword? [Because who says the other programs in OO.org are _necessary_? That's your assumption; and it isn't true for everyone that's as clear as you can get it..]

sigh...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:51:00 GMT

Premise: "People avoid change that is all there is to it."

Some do, some don't. We are both human, right? Can you speak for myself allowing me to do so too? Thanks! Or did you meant "most people"? -1 generalisation, again...

Problems ahead

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 02:52:00 GMT

Microsoft is really in trouble. If LongWait comes with a lot of new features, it will require education and training to be used efficiently and it will most likely break compatibility with old software. This will make it an expensive regardless what price tag Microsot will put on a licence upgrade. And if they doesn't put a lot of new stuff into it, there will be no reason to upgrade. Even today people most people don't upgraade from windows 2k to XP unless they get XP with a new computer, and even then many large companies order that new computer with win2k as the cost of testing and validating XP is too high. The only reason many of those companies doesn't still run NT4 is that it have become end of lifed and security updates will no longer be available.

As if this wasn't enough the free desktop gets better and better each day. By the time Longhorn is released we will have sean two or even three releases of Gnome and KDE, a new release of OpenOffice, several new versions of Mozilla and Firefox and all those application will be backed by a new and responsive Linux 2.8. These new free desktops will be highly inspired by the best of Apple and Microsoft so we can expect them to be just as easy to use as the upcomming Longhorn. To make it even worse for MS open source applications will use cross platform toolkits and free software will spread over to the windows platform making a full migration to free software easier. OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and now reasently, the Gimp is just the beginning.
This alone will be enough to get a market share of 10-15%. And when that happens hardware venders will recognize that market and we will probably see preinstalled Linuxes and better driver support.

Re: Uno Engborg

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 03:33:00 GMT

it will require education and training to be used efficiently and it will most likely break compatibility with old software.

Not so. Although I'm sure it will break some things (as Win9x to WinNT kernel did), most applications should still run fine.

By the time Longhorn is released we will have sean two or even three releases of Gnome and KDE, a new release of OpenOffice, several new versions of Mozilla and Firefox and all those application will be backed by a new and responsive Linux 2.8.

And since neither Mozilla nor OpenOffice runs under Windows, I can see how Linux has the distinct advantage here

people use at home what they use at work

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 03:34:00 GMT

If enterprises and universities start switching to Linux so will the users at home. It is too much hassle to have different sytems at home and work. If you use linux all day at work you will be comfortable using it at home. Many Amiga home users switched to PC because of this factor.

Will MS go broke..no. Will MS lose market share...almost certainly.

Hardware Specs

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 05:23:00 GMT

Ok, Windows XP will run fine on a high end PII or K6-2 if you have plenty of RAM (256MB). Longhorn pre-alpha's are slow on a P4 3.2. Longhorn releases will probably run that way on a quarter the hardware, so it's not *that* slow. It will require decent graphics to run the visual effects, duh.
Linux does to well on old hardware. I have it revitalizing an old PII 350, with 256MB of RAM. Yea, I could probably run XP, but it would be sluggish (plus I greatly prefer linux software).
The trouble that Longhorn will run into is the same one XP had. People don't want to upgrade. Some people want XP, but most people (and this includes businesses) just want to stick with what they have. A majority is averse to change. People upgrade with new hardware. However, I think we have reached that point where it's getting harder to give reasons to get faster hardware. Anything in the GHz or faster range (x86 compat) seems to be excellent for a desktop for quite a while to come. Niche markets need more power, but people who use their computers largely for documents, e-mail, web browsing, instant messaging, and most other communication tasks have something that should last them a while.

Is anyone else

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 05:54:00 GMT

Is anyone else really turned off by the open source community? Maybe it's just Linux, and not all of open source, but every time I read the comments section of anything about Windows, and see all the bashing from the open source community, I just want to vomit. Why would I want to support something so full of hate and anger? I have enough things in my life to get angry about, I don't need to invent some windmill demons to slay.

@Darius

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 06:19:00 GMT

- Runs great on my P3-450 w/192MB of RAM.
BS.(i know people who run it on a 500 mhz machine and its just SO damn slow.

- I can make it faster and stable than ANY Linux distro running Gnome/KDE
BS. Do not try to be a troll.
- It is possible (and quite trivial) to run Windows worm/trojan/virus/spyware free.
BS. You need a lot off EXTRA packages for it. Windows is not secure and very sensitive for virusses/worms etc. i see it every day.

anymore VALID points?

@Darius again... zucht ..

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 06:27:00 GMT

>And since neither Mozilla nor OpenOffice runs under Windows,
>I can see how Linux has the distinct advantage here

You really do not get it, i bet you never been in a production envoirment but just sitting home behind your P3/450 and thinking to whole world is using the fantastic Windows. Get real and know that there are tons of businesses who a switching from Windows to Linux/BSD at this moment. Linux is FREE, Open, stable, virus/trajon/worm free (out of the box), is very scalable, is Unix/Possix, run on almost every platform. Those are things that matter not if Windows can also run Firefox because MS will do everything what they can to prevent you from running apps like OOo or Firefox.

@Anonymous

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 06:35:00 GMT

>Is anyone else really turned off by the open source
>community? Maybe it's just Linux, and not all of open source,
>but every time I read the comments section of anything about
>Windows, and see all the bashing from the open source
>community, I just want to vomit. Why would I want to support
>something so full of hate and anger? I have enough things in
>my life to get angry about, I don't need to invent some
>windmill demons to slay.

I think that is becuase OSNEWS is full of so called experts who think that the know about an OS once they managed to get it installed. I think that upsets people, i know it does that to me. Anyway OSNEWS is not a reflection of the OSS community, its like everyday people some are zealots others are kind/nice/warm and actually learn you a few things.

RE: Bas

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 06:41:00 GMT

"- Runs great on my P3-450 w/192MB of RAM.
BS.(i know people who run it on a 500 mhz machine and its just SO damn slow."

Interesting... A good friend of mine runs XP on a 400 or 500 MHZ Celeron machine with 128 megs of RAM, and it seems to run fairly decent. Most Linux distros I have tried seem a bit slower and clunkier than Windows XP on my desktop.

- I can make it faster and stable than ANY Linux distro running Gnome/KDE
BS. Do not try to be a troll."

Hmm... So I wonder what I was experiencing all those times when Mandrake 10 and Fedora (man, am I tired of wasting times with different distros...) Would lock up on me and force me to reboot (and even boot into a GUI if I was lucky!!)? Couldnt be a crash. Heavens no. I could count the number of times that happened to me with Windows XP in the last year on one hand. And thats between two computers running it.

"- It is possible (and quite trivial) to run Windows worm/trojan/virus/spyware free.
BS. You need a lot off EXTRA packages for it. Windows is not secure and very sensitive for virusses/worms etc. i see it every day."

So you call "BS" on running Windows virus free, then you state that you need extra packages for it... So then it is possible. Last I checked Zone Alarm, a decent firewall was free. That leaves a virus scanner, which there are free ones too. Othewise, you do have a point here... but not for long when Service Pack 2 is released. Besides, a careful user wouldnt have a problem anyways. Now, put more people on Linux, and I believe we will see this more of a problem. Just like much commercial software, Linux or Mac isnt big enough for people to spend their time to write viruses for it.

"anymore VALID points?"
Yes, I would like to add a few of my own:

1. I can run all the software I need on Windows, with no emulators. This ensures that I have a greater chance of running the program, assuming that I have a machine powerful enough for that application and it will work with my hardware configuration (tends to not be a problem these days, but I guess it can still happen).

2. I can pretty much bet that any piece of hardware I buy will work on Windows. Though some stuff may work with Linux, my experiences with my hardware leaves me with reduced functionality than running in Windows.

3. Games. This speaks for itself.

interesting

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 06:56:00 GMT

Interesting. My computer specs are already 5x more powerful than needed to run longhorn at its max, and it only costed me 1000 to build it. You guys must suck at building pcs that function at full speed.

RE: Bas

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 07:02:00 GMT

"Those are things that matter not if Windows can also run Firefox because MS will do everything what they can to prevent you from running apps like OOo or Firefox."

Microsoft is a business, so of course they would want you to buy THEIR software and products! Would you expect Ford to just tell customers to use a Chevy? Of course not! Why is so hard to accept the fact that Microsoft does what is good for them, like any other business? Is it against the Open Source Relgion to accept this fact? That what any normal business would do, Microsoft deserves to be bashed for doing the same thing?

Seriously, I could see Linux becoming an official religion. Its god would be the Penguin, who can do nothing wrong. The Devil would be Microsoft, that does nothing but horrible stuff like charging for software to make a profit. People carring around CDs, knocking on peoples doors asking if they would like to convert to Linux. Why? Because its Linux, and not Windows. Just like those who stand on the corner handing out the Bible, we will see various Linux distro CDs being handed out. Next we will see people from Linux boxes trying to screw with someone running Windows, starting what would be viewed as a Holy War of the Operating Systems. I could go on, but I think everyone who actually read this far gets the point.

Article in a nutshell:

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 07:21:00 GMT

blah blah blah.. blh blah.. blah blah blah blah blah.. blha blah.. blah blah.. blah blah blah blah..

etc.

sidebar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 08:33:00 GMT

I don't know what longhorn sidebar is like but I have universal sidebar on kde and I like it.

RE: Warren Merrit

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 09:31:00 GMT

But just out of curiousity, how much space you have on the hard drive of that 433mhz box?

Uhm, I can't recall saying I had a 433 MHz box (maybe a typo on my behalf...?) but the 500 MHz box has 8 GB, I'm not exactly sure about the 400 MHz Pentium box (it's at my brother's place right now) and that 366 MHz laptop I was talking about has 4 GB of space. It's really gonna be cool when I'll be able to find some cheap laptop memory and then install XP on it

Lightweight distro

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 09:32:00 GMT

Yes, Linux can run on old hardware if you select the right bits, but it's not that easy. We need one or two distros that are targeted specifically at old hardware but at the same time are easy to install and use. The hardware recognition needs to be as good as on Knoppix or Mandrake, and it must install all the right lightweight apps by default. You can get any of the major distros to run with low-spec apps, but you have to select them specifically which means you have to know what each package is. But new users don't have this knowledge, and even then it's too much work. It must be as easy as Mandrake/Xandros/Knoppix, but install low spec stuff by default. I suspect this is not that hard, but most of the effort is going towards the leading edge stuff.

Puppy Linux is a good start, using IceWM as the only choice, but some of it's apps are too basic and it requires too much ram (as it runs directly from ram). Vector Linux falls short on hardware detection and slickness during install/config, and already includes too much choice, including heavy stuff like KDE 3.2. I just want a CD that I can give to my friend with her 32MB laptop with a broken/infected Win98, and know that everything will install smoothly (as you can generally do now with say Knoppix on newer machines)

Sidebar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 09:34:00 GMT

Speaking of sidebars, I have Desktop Sidebar installed on my main machine, and I wouldn't be able to live without it (on Windows that is, I somehow don't need anything like that in MDK/BeOS). OSNews.com headlines, weather, command line. etc.

Microsoft is so innocent

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 09:42:00 GMT

When microsoft does not create something, you say that they are not innovative
When microsoft creates new product, you say that it is not necessary, it is monopoly....

If you don buy microsoft product, how can he be monopoly?
Big market shares means monopoly? i wander
if you don like microsoft, just dont use thier product, don always critisize other people OK?

so tired with all these postings

New hardware would be cheaper than migrating to Linux...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 09:49:00 GMT

That's the main flaw here. The other being that Linux, especially any form of Linux you could make run of legacy hardware, won't have the software they need.

standards

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 10:09:00 GMT

what linux really needs is standards.. people want somethin easier than to install 1284 programs just to get a chat program installed, where in windows you (almost always) only need the installer for the program.. this is simply because linux developers can't agree on any programming standard, and all of them creates their favorite.. yet i personally love linux, because it gives you freedom to choose what you want on you system, instead of windows' 1billion services that all runs unless you choose them not to .. but perhaps this oppotunerty would dissapear if there were more specific rules for programming standards .. or what?

Sick already

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 10:29:00 GMT

By the time Longhorn comes out I'm sure everyone will be sick of the subject "windows vs linux."

I'm sick of it already. Where May 2004, Longhorn may ship in 2006. That's a year and a half I'll have to read stuff like this on a product that is not for sale.

That's gonna be a long annoying time !!

Microsoft is just showing the evident

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 10:46:00 GMT

For people who thinks than Linux is reaching spaces into the desktop scene, must not forget than: 1. the development core will deploy microsoft with .NET technology (while linux communities is still insisting in already deprecated technology as PHP , etc. Again they are sleeping at the wheel thinking than Longhorn is just a nice desktop, wich is mediocre understanding about ms technology), 2. if linux wants to hit the Desktop market, they must stop to IMITATE windows. and 3. the REAL posibilitie about something microsoft said before "buy linux", of course that will be the last card microsoft will show. The battle is just starting, but microsoft has the advantaje and the ball is on linux hands.

@steelgunner

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 11:18:00 GMT

>
is still insisting in already deprecated technology as PHP ,
>etc. Again they are sleeping at the wheel thinking than
>Longhorn is just a nice desktop, wich is mediocre
>understanding about ms technology),
PHP is very nice but you must not compare apples to pears.

>2. if linux wants to hit the Desktop market, they must stop to IMITATE windows.
I agree but yet all Windows people here find Linux hard to use if the musttype apt-get instead of click > setup.exe.

@Anonymous (IP: ---.rb.vcr.centurytel.net)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 11:31:00 GMT

>Microsoft is a business, so of course they would want you to
>buy THEIR software and products! Would you expect Ford to
>just tell customers to use a Chevy? Of course not! Why is so
>hard to accept the fact that Microsoft does what is good for
>them, like any other business? Is it against the Open Source
>Relgion to accept this fact? That what any normal business
>would do, Microsoft deserves to be bashed for doing the same
> thing?

YEP! If you, the user, are being in someway obstructed in doing your business because somebody want you / forces you to use their product, they deserve to be bashed.
It not about Open-Source bla bla, i am not agianst commercial software but you must understand that if there is only ONE company that is going to dictate what / when or how we are going to use a product., that is bad, very bad for the you, the consumer, and very bad for our ecomomy. Linux is the only real treat of Microsoft today, its keeps things a little bit in balance. You, the consmumer, benefits from that, Microsoft is forced to make better/cheaper products. Please print that in your head and start downloading Linux right now!

And please do not nage about problems here but try and solve
things once. There is google there is msn, search and you will find.

Running systems secure

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 11:33:00 GMT

The comments about it being difficult to run Win XP without trojans/viruses etc. are just false.

You need a good firewall, preferably hardware based and some common sense in dealing with your e-mail attatchments. Correct settings in IE and an automatic OS update once a month which can run in the background. That's it.

Our production machines which run XP have never been infected by trojans or viruses, nor have our OSX machines.

RE: Bas (Anonymous...yaddda yadda)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 11:38:00 GMT

ok, so BAS overshot a little bit with his BS section, i agree, but you also did.. pretty much any hardware works with windows? thats the biggest load of ***** i have read so far..yes everyone has "drivers" for windows but there are plenty of parts out there that are cheap no-name that , if you install the drivers that come with it, will create havoc on your machine... and to boot its different hardware on different machines...

I run both windows and Linux on my desktop and at my work place because personally i am sick of viruses, trojans etc. and they come... eventually something will find its way to your computer.
Now we were talking about average users. and Darius said its trivial to make a windows xp machine secure and virus free... thats complete BS.. you install zone alarm (if the user will even get this far without help) and as soon as the user installs a program or opens a browser etc a nice popup comes saying: do you wnat the service (example) lsass.exe or "simple tcp services" to access the internet... they click ok. well what exactly would a user know about a program called internetbrowser.exe for exampl that could be a trojan?
and about service pack 2 on windows XP.... dont make me laugh , we have been testing it and you BETTEr hope you dont have any other firewall software installed cuz you're in for a world of trouble. (symantecc live update getting blocked etc...)

So, then my last comment about the "lightweight" linux distro etc? noone has mentioned it so far so i will say it.:

XFCE4, its beautyfull and fast. Now about memory usage here's the kicker:
System: fedora Core1
DE: XFCE4
open applications: Firefox, GAIM, KMail
memory usage : 92MB!!!!!!

92MB is pretty acceptable i think, and XFCE supports adding parts from KDE or gnome (panels etc) so I am wondering why people dont use that on lightweight machines?
It would be nice to make a fedora deriviate with XFCE as a default DE cuz speedwise its brilliant...

my 2c

@Elimar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 11:42:00 GMT

>The comments about it being difficult to run Win XP without
>trojans/viruses etc. are just false.

No there are not.

>You need a good firewall,
I agree OpenBSD will do the trick.

>common sense in dealing with your e-mail attatchments.
>Correct settings in IE and an automatic OS update once a
>month which can run in the background. That's it.

Windows XP targets home users who do not have common sense.

Besides all you nice XPrences, i do not believe Windows is
secure. Its got so many holes they find them almost every single day.

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/alerts/index.html

@Bas

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:07:00 GMT

My argument was not that it's easy for a home user to keep their system secure. It was to counter the matter-of-fact statements that it's difficult to keep an XP system secure. If you know what you are doing it's not.

I have cleaned enough users private home computers to understand they have problems. On the other hand I would be scared to death to put a linux box in front of any of them, they could do some serious damage. I have even seen them destroy macs :-) the risk for infection is less common on mac and linux but home users can do some crazy things to all systems...

@elimar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:12:00 GMT

well if you know wath your doing then everything is easy.

heck if you know wath your doing writing your own OS would be easy so wath is the point

@Ellmar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:00 GMT

>On the other hand I would be
> scared to death to put a linux box in front of any of them,

I am not i have transferd a lot, not without problems and not without people who wanted to get back to Windows but in some cases people where so, so satified.
Little example. I have some friend who live in my neighborhood they have over 4 different digital camera's in Windows they needed to install 4 differnt pieces of software
(about 200mb all toghter) to get it work, start 4 differnet programs etc. Sometimes connection was not possible and Windows XP needed to reboot to finally get the camera work again. I transferd them to Lindows 4.5 and showed them Digikam, digikam reconized ALL of the camera's instantly
and could even connect to all of them at the same time, that is in the same session. The NEVER want to get back to Windows. Trust me.
> they could do some serious damage.
As long as you do not run as root there is no harm done

re@Elimar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:16:00 GMT

>The comments about it being difficult to run Win XP without
>trojans/viruses etc. are just false.

No there are not.

I love blind assertions. It is not "difficult" to run WinXP without trojans/viruses. It is slightly hard to run WinXP without ad-/spy-ware, but it can be done.

To run XP without trojans and viruses simply requires regular updates and user education. This can be helped with decent email and internet browser software and an external firewall. Even Outlook qualifies as decent email software if it's been updated and configured properly, as most files that can carry a virus or trojan are blocked.

I, personally, don't use anti-virus software except to occasionally scan my computers when they're having problems. In 8 years of building and administrating my own computers, I've never had a virus or trojan that I did not install expressly to test the anti-virus software.

Ad-/spy-ware requires a little more effort, because it's installed primarily by internet sites and/or with downloaded software, because people believe that it's ok to make money off of non-profitable ventures (like mediocre shareware and websites), even at the expense of irritating their users (which is probably why the ventures are non-profitable in the first place). It's also a fairly young area, so much of the software that combats this problem is incomplete. This means that the best defense is a combination of software, usually ad-aware and spybot S&D, with full immunization enabled, plus a good pop-up blocker which helps stop many of the methods used to install ad-/spy-ware from internet sites (since they usually use a pop-under window that tries to install it).

>You need a good firewall,
I agree OpenBSD will do the trick.

I definitely agree. However, even the simple firewall built into many NAT routers will be enough for most users. On the other hand, if you have an old computer sitting around and plenty of extra time on your hands, configuring an OpenBSD box to sit on your internet connection and do nothing but route and block packets is one of the best choices, regardless of what you're running behind it.

>common sense in dealing with your e-mail attatchments.
>Correct settings in IE and an automatic OS update once a
>month which can run in the background. That's it.

Windows XP targets home users who do not have common sense.

Which is why automatic updates are scheduled by default, and MS needs to be pushed into configuring OE and IE correctly by default. If the user has Office, they should be using Outlook instead of OE, and it is configured correctly by default (with extra security options in Outlook2k4 needing a little tweaking, but they are beyond what most people consider secure).

Besides all you nice XPrences, i do not believe Windows is
secure. Its got so many holes they find them almost every single day.

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/alerts/index.html

Let's see, according to that site there have been about 4 in the last month. That's quite a bit short of every single day, but then again you didn't even link to recent information, either. There's also plenty of other buggy software on the lists, for almost any operating system you could possibly be running, and 3 holes in Mac OS X, a couple in Solaris, various Linux kernel holes based on version and/or distro, and so on.

Windows, like any other system, is only as secure as the user.

RE: PainKilleR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:24:00 GMT

Windows, like any other system, is only as secure as the user.

That must be the sanest comment I've heard in ages. Couldn't agree more.

@PainkillerR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:27:00 GMT

>Let's see, according to that site there have been about 4 in
>the last month. That's quite a bit short of every single day,

Thanks for the advise...it where only four..no big deal

>but then again you didn't even link to recent information,
Oh..i did not anted to overflow you with information..sorry

>There's also plenty of other buggy software on the lists,
> for almost any operating system you could possibly be
Its not about third party software but about the OS

>running, and 3 holes in Mac OS X, a couple in Solaris,
>various Linux kernel holes based on version and/or distro,
> and so on.

Please read for once and look at the status of treath,
are ther remote/local exploits etc.

>Windows, like any other system, is only as secure as the
>user.
False, BSD and Linux are far more secure than any Windows version. The user is important but if your program get shipped with serious securtiy flaws, holes, and badly configured firewall the user is not to blame. Windows XP per default shares a folder called "My Shared Docs" etc.
I have connected to dozens of Windows 200 / XP /2003 machines with: smbclient -L //123.123.123.123 and after that smbmount //123/123/123/123/C$ f.i.

RE: zealot

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:37:00 GMT

"Maybe some are just afraid that Microsoft has a real Linux killer on their hands, and will do what it takes, even skewing some facts to make their Linux religion look superior."

first of all, zealotry is useless, on both sides, and is not representative of the users of any operating system. most of the time (or always) they are people with very limited os knowledge.

about microsoft having a killer, just look back. theyve had "killers" between every os release, and longhorn, right now, is just the latest. its called marketing, and theyre pretty good at it.

security is subjecitve

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 12:58:00 GMT

i wonder why linux users insist to much than "security" is the only thing than makes a good OS. Thats totally false. At client side what is priority is the USABILITY, finally if an user never took care about his personal computer security, he just can reinstall it quickly and update patches (thats what happens in the real scenario) , but what is interesting is that DOESNT affect the CHOICE of an OS, and thats why after all this waves of warms and trojans people still keeps using Windows.

Linux communitie should stop to argue with that abused speach "Linux is secure", and focus more to make an USABLE desktop, with standards and real applications for profesional ending. After all this decade trying to IMITATE windows, again they are sleeping at the wheel

SmartBar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 13:21:00 GMT

The "smartbar" proposed in Longhorn has been imitated by SmartBar XP so you can have nearly the same functionality as what would be proposed in the same bar for Longhorn. After using it for a couple months, I can honestly say that it doesn't take up too much screen real estate so long as you're running at a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024. I also can say that I cannot see myself using my computer without it.

http://www.smartbarxp.com/cgi-bin/main.cgi?parent=main&display=...

reasons for Linux (from MCP, with 3 years of C# coding)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 13:30:00 GMT

I'm a seasoned C#.NET developer with a large financial firm, who did tons of projects in C#.NET. 1.5 years ago I realized that the job market is not that great for Microsoft-only droids and switch everything I had at home to Linux (Debian, Knoppix, Fedora, even Gentoo): 10+ computers, including IPAQ! People don't like Microsoft droids. Industry doesn't like them. How can you like a person whose mind is locked on a certain vendor only, even if the products of that vendor are inferior. At the end business wants a result at the cheapest price (+risk assessment). It's a LEGACY software of the company nobody likes. .NET is great, but so is Mono! Guess what, I've heard all that debate about Mono pursuit by Microsoft, BS! Even if they wanted, the public outcry will be enormous, and this time (unlike Netscape times), the community is ready to fight for its baby. We well not surrender our freedom. My freedom to say: #apt-get install kde gnome mplayer xine, and not some BS Microsoft junk. Think about it.

re: security is subjective

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 13:30:00 GMT

> At client side what is priority is the USABILITY

Yeah, with Windows, you can use other people's machines and they can use yours... without permission!

Where do all these Be Inc. statements come from!?!??

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 13:50:00 GMT

Rememeber, MS have recognized it's use of monopoly. They killed BeOS, said I'm sorry, I shoot you and thats kill you but take this bucks. But the matter is that Be Inc. is death.

Settled or not the result in that point was that there will not be more Be Inc. to compete.

For gods sake man please let Be Inc. rest in peace. It was a mismanaged company with an egomaniac at the helm. THATS what killed Be, not Apple and certainly not MS.

OMG!?!? You mean a NEW OS is going to take a NEWER computer?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 14:09:00 GMT

my P2/400 with 128 MB RAM]

Mandrake 9.2 on a eMachine 400ix (Celeron 400, 128 Ram and 20 GB hd)

It has an AMD K6-2 333MHz processor and (I think) 32 Meg of RAM.

Yes Windows XP let alone Longhorn ain't gonna cut it on these POS systems. Sorry. Technology moves forward my friends.

Luckily you can run an OS like Linux on these ancient boxes and putt along just fine while the rest of the world moves to 3 Ghz. and beyond with newer operating systems.

Win 2003 needs at leas a 500 mhz P3 with 256 megs of ram to accomplish this.

Who in their right mind would spend the money on Win2003 to run it on something as old as a P3 500 ? Get real. You'd spend more on your copy of Win2003 than the whole damn computer is worth.

Cha Cha Cha Changes.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 14:21:00 GMT

Linux doesn't matter. There already are better choices than MS Windows, such as Mac OS X and Linspire, but they don't matter. MS has the biggest thing going for it which is also the hardest thing to overcome; an ignorant public.
90% of America doesn't know there is a choice. "All my files will only work in Windows." "My work uses Windows, so I have to, too." "Everyone else uses Windows. Why shouldn't I?"... and on and on.
Even with all of their money, Apple hasn't had much success teaching people that it can be a multi-platform world. I really don't see how an Open-Source or a Start Up company will be able to overcome this.
It'll take decades of a slow slip out of power for MS to fail as the desktop of Choice. I'm afraid we're stuck with a few more versions of Windows before the public learns a new trick.

About the Apps

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 14:41:00 GMT

I see that a lot of people writing: "Windows has [all the I need/the best]". But does everybody actually BUYS these programs?

I live in a country where 30% of the population earns US$100 a month. How do you think these people can buy the "best" apps, or even a top-of-line computer? Windows is dominant because of pirated (is this the word?) software.

Just to make things clearer, Macs for example are great desktop computers, but why are their market share so ridiculous compared to what they offer? Here the cheapest Mac costs about twice as much as other comparable hardware. There is not pirated (heheheh) Macs, so they are not popular.

Those who are say "best apps", please specify the price you have to pay for them.

RE: Cha Cha Cha Changes.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 14:49:00 GMT

"90% of America doesn't know there is a choice."

America (USA) is not the World, not even the entire America, sorry to disappoint you.

Please don't take this as an offense, but North-Americans are to self-centered and ignorant about the World outside the bounds of US.

You will answer a lot of obvious questions if you think "Globally"

Mission Call

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 15:05:00 GMT

Congratulations on your Mission Call. Things will definitely be different after two years.

Good Luck!

Re..

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 15:15:00 GMT

> Last post, continued:
>It appears to me a lot of people are misinformed about XP's system requirements...

A lot of this 'misinformation' comes from Microsoft itself. Look at the minimum specs from Microsofts own website:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/sysreqs.a...

300 MHz processor
128 meg of RAM
1.5 gigabytes of hard disk space

Technically, the system may run. But there is a big difference between running and being useful. Load XP onto a machine with those specs and see how painful it is to use.

I'd recommend:

1.5+ GHz processor
512 meg of RAM
20 gigabyte hard disk

RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.147.119-193.newsouth.net)

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 15:31:00 GMT

300 MHz processor
128 meg of RAM

I've taken the task upon myself to prove that Windows XP will run on my 366 MHz PII laptop... I only need more memory (now it's at 64, that's not enough of course.).

Productivity

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 15:31:00 GMT

maybe is truth that part "customers are brute and ignorants to buy windows", but also what is truth is "use linux and you will decrease your productivity".

Apart the need to be an programmer to setup Linux (im talking about final end users), the users must sacrifice producivity, due THERE IS NO PROFESIONAL APPLICATIONS over linux, the best you can find to photo edition is GIMP, but GIMP vs Photoshop is the same as Notepad compared to Ms Word.

I mean, does the linux communitie understood what microsoft really does for customers??, we can sintetize that on this sentence "productivity for money", over windows i can even spell a word "email" and inmediatly i can write an email, but in linux enviroment i need to click 10 times to do the same, and better not talk about copy paste standars, and the lack of standards, the enterprise and final customers wants a TOOL to make easy their lifes and job, not a complication.

Thats one of the STEPS we are waiting from linux (suse and lindows but not enough), become an useful tool, and stop to being just an OS and DEKSTOP for a bunch of programmers. And as one can see the chose is not a matter to be part of that "90% of America" ignorants, its just COMMON SENSE.

re

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 15:46:00 GMT

If linux was as easy as windows to install maybe they will instal linux, but for the moment if you're not a geek IT'S HARD TO INSTAL LINUX on a computer. So if nothing really change, i think small business will prefer to change their computer and work on longhorn...

Re: re

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 15:56:00 GMT

Using Knoppix is soooo difficult! I need to put the CD in the drive and then reboot the PC! Yes, you are right, that's too difficult for the average computer user.

Or wait, you mean a real distribution, like SuSE. That is a lot more difficult indeed! Insert the DVD, reboot and click NEXT-NEXT-NEXT-NEXT-NEXT-FINISS. Yes, one is a fool if one thinks that the average computer-literate small-business person will be able to accomplish this extraordinary difficult task... *cough*

Btw. I don't see the problem with running XP on a P300/128 because it runs just fine on my PII/350/128. It's the RAM that makes the difference, and a little the applications. On that PC it would not be recommended to use OO-quickstart, MS-Office bar, antivirus, Logitech drivers, WinZip Tray, Nero shell integration, ..........

RE: Huh??

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 16:02:00 GMT

"It has never been the case in the past. Never. Pick any operating system, Windows, Apple, Solaris, Linux, AIX, Netware, any one. With every new version of every one of these operating systems there has been an increased system requirement, "

I know of one, OpenVMS. When I upgraded my Alpha servers to VMS 7.3-1 and enabled/tuned the XFC caching, my production cycles sped along approximately 20% faster without any changes to hardware. None.

The cycles include extensive Oracle database transaction table lookups and updates, financial data computation, and similar heavy lifting.

re:re...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 17:09:00 GMT

A lot of this 'misinformation' comes from Microsoft itself. Look at the minimum specs from Microsofts own website:

300 MHz processor
128 meg of RAM
1.5 gigabytes of hard disk space

The very site you linked states those are the "recommended" specs, with minimum being:

233 MHz CPU
64MB RAM (w/ limited performance/features)
1.5 GB HD (as you stated)

All said, I had a better computer (than either min. or recommended) 6 years ago, running Win95 (because 98 wouldn't install properly in it's original incarnation).

My father-in-law is currently running XP on a 500MHz system, but of course it's a full P3 (rather than a Celeron or some such), has 256MB of RAM, and a far larger hard drive than 1.5GB, built out of spare parts. It runs wonderfully, but then he doesn't use the XP themes (his choice, not mine), and doesn't use it for much more than most other users (email, IM, scanning photos, music, internet, a few documents once in a while). I stopped using the same system myself quite a few years ago, except for testing software being developed for a 700MHz system that's roughly 4 years old now.

Technically, the system may run. But there is a big difference between running and being useful. Load XP onto a machine with those specs and see how painful it is to use.

I'd recommend:

1.5+ GHz processor
512 meg of RAM
20 gigabyte hard disk

Depending on the user, I'd recommend a minimum of a 400MHz CPU with 256MB and a 20GB hard disk. For someone looking to do something more complicated than most users, I'd scale the processor and RAM up according to their use, and the hard drive according to their needs. Additionally, I only really recommend the 20GB hard disk because it's becoming harder to find smaller disks and the cost per megabyte is higher even at 20GB than at higher levels (but better than it would be if you could find 8-18GB drives).

On the other hand, if someone had a computer that didn't meet those levels, I'd simply look at what they have and see if it would be best to simply put a basic NAT box with minimal firewall in front of it. Someone that's basically happy with their 233MHz PC running Win98SE (which, at the time of it's release, I never recommended for less than a P2, though I've seen it run fine on some P1 computers) probably shouldn't try to upgrade their system unless they're willing to buy a whole new computer, but they should definitely have the appropriate software to protect the system, and something to shield them from the various attacks that may come through open ports.

On the other hand, if they want to run Linux, by all means let them. In most cases they'll still have to look around to find the appropriate software to run smoothly in their limited environment. You're not going to run the world's flashiest window manager on a box that runs at a division of 10 the MHz of a current cheap/average computer, and a good portion of XP's increased requirements come because they added a flashy window manager (and it doesn't get rid of all of the overhead just because you disable theming; not that XP's window manager is the world's flashiest, either).

RE: Where do all these Be Inc. statements come from!?!??

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 17:23:00 GMT

"For gods sake man please let Be Inc. rest in peace. It was a mismanaged company with an egomaniac at the helm. THATS what killed Be, not Apple and certainly not MS"

Windows vs. Linux... it's not a fair comparison. This comment is in this thread to remember the fact that microsoft will try to advantage any other platform not just technologicaly, there will be always other facts not technical related.

MS will use any trick available to preserve it's share, they are filling suits with everybody for any thing, they have money and time to do this, but emerging companies haven't it. With the Software Patents enforce this will be an isue for any new compani, product, technology.

You can se the MS tricky practices in drivers, hardware, OEM, etc.

Linux and any other OS are not subject only to a normal market situation, any competitor (even linux) faces an enviroment filled with Microsoft sided advantages.

Linux not only need polish it's technology and usability, needs tools to break all pro-ms enviroment variables and infrastructure.

And it was truth, Be decisions slowly killed itself, but MS practices can be considered as a grace shot.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=67
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=681
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4464

So what's a "modern" or "obsolete" computer.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 17:30:00 GMT

I guess it all comes down to what one's used to. As if no one has ever done professional job until we got to work on >500 MHz computers. Which brings me to why I write in here:

I am not really a friend of changing computers. Up to the point that after about 7 years, I will be dumping my trusty home computer, a Pentium 233 with 160 MB or RAM and a mediocre Matrox Millenium with no 3D and just 4 MB of VRAM, and "upgrading" to a blazing "fast" Apple iMac DV 400 MHz with 600 MB of RAM.

I have never used anything but Windows and Mac OS before, and would like to put the old P233 to use as a computer to just play with new OSs, see what they are like and learn a bit of them. But I am seeing how even those that speak about "obsolete" computers refer to even faster ones than the one I am upgrading to.

So my question is, what the heck I can install in there, that has a GUI (if you do not ming I will go step by step) and does not suck. I do not care about drop shadows, SVG icons or other eyecandy, but still want a little bit more than a bulky typewriter (heck! I have done heavy Photoshop and lighty 3D work on that calculator and now it seems like we always needed a 2 GHz to play MP3s!).

The only thing I am open to upgrade is the graphic card, but have in mind that there is no AGP in there, so I do not really know if there are PCI ones in the market yet (that are not pretty much the same that I already have).

I will appreciate whatever piece of advice any of you can give me (except for anything related to aquariums or throwing it away) on how to approach new OSs.

re: @PainKilleR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 17:46:00 GMT

Thanks for the advise...it where only four..no big deal

Certainly better than the 28-31 you claimed.

Oh..i did not anted to overflow you with information..sorry

I'm sure that's the case, after all, the information on the section of the site you linked to was only slightly pathetic, and certainly didn't back up your claims. At least the bulletins section is claimed to be updated bi-weekly rather than to be simply "timely" information.

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/index.html

Its not about third party software but about the OS

yet they list both.

Please read for once and look at the status of treath,
are ther remote/local exploits etc.

Yes, the three OS X exploits are 2 remote and 1 local, with the local being a status elevation that can be used once you gain remote access.

False, BSD and Linux are far more secure than any Windows version.

Then we come around to the old saying "Generalizations are always false" (I love that one, being a generalization itself). BSD and Linux, when administrated properly, can be very secure systems (especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of it's low number of discovered vulnerabilities), and Windows can be as well. BSD, Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X can all be gaping insecure holes on the network when administered improperly. Guess which system is most likely to be administered improperly?

The user is important but if your program get shipped with serious securtiy flaws, holes, and badly configured firewall the user is not to blame.

If the system shipped yesterday, you might have a point. Unfortunately, very few systems have ever come with a solid default configuration, and even fewer have remained secure for years without administrative intervention. Windows XP shipped 3 years ago, there's no doubt in my mind that the most serious security risks coming from XP boxes are due to user ignorance and/or carelessness.

Windows XP per default shares a folder called "My Shared Docs" etc.
I have connected to dozens of Windows 200 / XP /2003 machines with: smbclient -L //123.123.123.123 and after that smbmount //123/123/123/123/C$ f.i.

That's all well and good given that you should never be able to connect to an SMB share when you're not on the local network with the user. Of course, there have been patches related to SMB vulnerabilities (though I'm not completely sure about 2003 Server), but even your most basic NAT box should stomp that out.

Of course, the fact that you managed an smbmount of C$ has nothing to do with "My Shared Docs", any more than the fact that you managed to do it without supplying authentication to any of those operating systems (which is just a sign of a really bad configuration).

RE: Productivity

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:03:00 GMT

"Apart the need to be an programmer to setup Linux (im talking about final end users)"

hmmmmm yesssss... programmers are operating systems experts indeed... care to explain exactly where programming skills help? or did you just hear someone say that and have absolutely no idea what youre talking about?

"the users must sacrifice producivity, due THERE IS NO PROFESIONAL APPLICATIONS over linux"

really... because those expert computer users need all those advanced ms office features all the time... heck, that explains why sun microsystems is where it is now. they dont use any microsoft software. there goes productivity, no more documentation, no more presentations.. dang how do they manage? wont even mention offices that migrated to open office and friends. they must really miss that flight simulator feature in word now.

"GIMP vs Photoshop is the same as Notepad compared to Ms Word."

what an odd comparison. i did have the feeling you had no idea what you were talking about.

"over windows i can even spell a word "email" and inmediatly i can write an email, but in linux enviroment i need to click 10 times to do the same"

interesting... can you detail both processes? in the meantime, check this out: $ echo "whee" | mail steelgunner@jupiter.com. wow! i just typed that and it send an email! i must have ms office installed here and didnt even know!

RE: OMG!?!? You mean a NEW OS is going to take a NEWER computer?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:03:00 GMT

"Yes Windows XP let alone Longhorn ain't gonna cut it on these POS systems. Sorry. Technology moves forward my friends."

We are talking here about minimum requirements, some of us had a bunch of old technology on what we found fun and like test everything we can. Obviusly some software will not run, but we learn on practice, not just guessing.

And for my mom and dad, that 400ix with Mandrake 9.2 are enought and usable, I'll not pay an MS licence for such use, and anyway, XP doesn't run acceptable on It. It came with W98 preinstaled, but WDM audio driver don't work properly (even after tried around 6 diferent versions - even from Cirrus Logic and eMachines -), then I dropped it. Mandrake did the work flawles. But I had a choice, and that's what matters.

With 6 computer just in my house ranging from 480SX 25Mhz to P4 HT 2.8 Mhz it's not just bla, bla what I wrotte. It's just experience, and MS is alive just in two of these, for Gamming and 'cause my work (MS Products).

@PainKillerR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:16:00 GMT

>Certainly better than the 28-31 you claimed.
I was trying to point out that Windows has a lot of security issues in history and today. LInux and BSD have far less. ITs not about exact numbers. I will take your point.

> I'm sure that's the case, after all, the information on >the section of the site you linked to was only slightly
>pathetic, and certainly didn't back up your claims.

I linked to the top page, i assumd the reader could click trough the page itself. Sorry for that i did not know you where not capable of that.

> yet they list both.
Yes BUT we where discussing Windows not third party software.

>

\>Then we come around to the old saying "Generalizations
> are always false" (I love that one, being a
> generalization itself). BSD and Linux, when
> administrated properly, can be very secure systems

It is about the way the software behaves when its first installed, i pointed out that Linux and BSD are far more
better secured when installed than Windows.

> (especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of
> it's low number of discovered vulnerabilities), and

What a crap, that has nothing to do with i. Weak answer.
Lame.

> Windows can be as well.
No i can not its in the news all day even MS got their source code stolen from there own srvers..come on.

>BSD, Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X can all be gaping
>insecure holes on the network when administered >improperly.
Off course but again it is about their state when freshly installed, besides that Windows user a mostly newbies and
non-tech computer users, Linux and BSD users are mostly better instructed.

>Windows XP shipped 3 years ago, there's no doubt in my
> mind that the most serious security risks coming from XP
> boxes are due to user ignorance and/or carelessness.
User ignorance? how is that? Most security issues with Windows are because of virusses and trojan wich can
exist because of bad OS design by the builder.

>but even your most basic NAT box should stomp that out.
NAT has nothing to do with security.
NAT tries to hide internal IP adresses but good scanner
are easily go trough. Please read more about security
and issues if you think a NAT box will help you to protect against crackers.

>Of course, the fact that you managed an smbmount of C$ >has nothing to do with "My Shared Docs", any more than
> the fact that you managed to do it without supplying
> authentication to any of those operating systems (which
> is just a sign of a really bad configuration).

As you know C$ is an adminstrative share and should not be
viewable for Windows werkstations/servers, however Samba does show them, great design.
I connected more then once to ""My Shared Docs" folder when scanning IP ranges, all without password.
As far as i know you do not need any password for My shared Docs per defalut, i could be wrong dough..

RE: So what's a "modern" or "obsolete" computer.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:22:00 GMT

Your old computer are enougth for graphical OS like BEOS and QNX, you can try MenuetOS and SkyOS. All those are fairy Simply to install.

As for Beos you can use Beos PE, Max edition or XBeos (Live CD). Your matrox would work fine.

QNX works as a standalone OS whit it own partition and filesystem, within Windows filesystem, and also as a Live CD. I guess QNX had matrox support (I haven't any matrox).

SkyOS 4 was the last publicity avaibable and also works as a Live CD.

Even if your Graphic card is not supported al of these can work with VESA drivers.

Menuet is a tiny OS, fits in a Diskette but it has a Graphical enviroment, can work on a Fat 32 disk also.

BEOS, QNX and Menuet can live alongside with Windows.

Some of you window fans are missing the point

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:42:00 GMT

re: @PainKilleR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:54:00 GMT

I linked to the top page, i assumd the reader could click trough the page itself. Sorry for that i did not know you where not capable of that.

You linked to a seperate, partially related section with a very small amount of relevant information, not the top page. Obviously I was capable of looking around for the relevant section, but then your comments made it apparent that you may not have been looking at the same section.

Yes BUT we where discussing Windows not third party software.

Of course, and I was simply pointing out that, in addition to numerous vulnerabilities for numerous operating systems, there are numerous vulnerabilities in applications, many of which are cross-platform, which could also be at issue. Additionally, many of those applications, 3rd party or not, are shipped with some of the operating systems we have been discussing.

It is about the way the software behaves when its first installed, i pointed out that Linux and BSD are far more
better secured when installed than Windows.

And this has not always been the case (nor is it always the case today). Linux distros have certainly gotten better at shipping a more secure OS than they did 3 years ago, or 10 years ago. On the other hand, when someone hands you a CD with Linux or BSD on it, you have no better assurance that it's secure than if it were a Windows disc. You either trust the distribution or you learn to secure it yourself. Similarly, the level of installation you choose for a Linux or BSD install can be a determining factor in the security of the system, as any number of servers and applications may be installed with vulnerabilities based on configuration and version.

> (especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of
> it's low number of discovered vulnerabilities), and

What a crap, that has nothing to do with i. Weak answer.
Lame.

As opposed to your strong counter-argument. Again, it all comes down to administration, version, and configuration. OpenBSD is considered more secure simply because vulnerabilities are rarely found. This is helped by the fact that it's maintainers don't include the newest software, instead letting vulnerabilities in external products be found in other systems (ie systems running FreeBSD, Linux, etc). Still, they managed to have some rather serious (especially by their standards) vulnerabilities discovered in the last couple of years. The nature of security is that you can only secure it to the best of your knowledge and capabilities.

> Windows can be as well.
No i can not its in the news all day even MS got their source code stolen from there own srvers..come on.

So, because it has been configured in an insecure manner it suddenly can not be secured? By this measure, there is no secure OS in the world. Then again, if your idea of a secure OS is based on what the news tells you ever day, good luck.

Off course but again it is about their state when freshly installed, besides that Windows user a mostly newbies and
non-tech computer users, Linux and BSD users are mostly better instructed.

I believe I stated that last point myself, though in different language. The first point can be turned against you if you simply look at the differences between the average Linux distro and one of the handful of "secure" Linux distros. In this case, it not only depends on administration, but on your own personal definition of secure. Apparently, Linux as shipped by most distributors, is not secure enough for the government (any more than Windows is, take a look at the certified configuration of NT4 or 2k sometime).

>Windows XP shipped 3 years ago, there's no doubt in my
> mind that the most serious security risks coming from XP
> boxes are due to user ignorance and/or carelessness.
User ignorance? how is that? Most security issues with Windows are because of virusses and trojan wich can
exist because of bad OS design by the builder.

and the majority of the viruses and trojans are released after MS releases a patch and security bulletin (the latter of which usually contains enough information to exploit the vulnerability). Additionally, security holes are not usually caused by a design flaw, but rather a flaw in the implementation, which is obviated by your use of the term builder (since a builder and designer are different people in most other industries). If the flaw were in the design, a patch would be far less than what is required to fix the problem. (then again, due to poor implementation and a design that pre-dates the need for internet access on desktop computers, it could be said that the number of patches will eventually lead to a necessary redesign)

>but even your most basic NAT box should stomp that out.
NAT has nothing to do with security.
NAT tries to hide internal IP adresses but good scanner
are easily go trough. Please read more about security
and issues if you think a NAT box will help you to protect against crackers.

Most NAT boxes have basic firewall capabilities (because it's cheap to implement on the hardware required for a NAT box). Additionally, SMB is not supposed to be routed through a NAT box, therefore you should not be able to scan or mount SMB shares through it. If your NAT box routes SMB data to the outside world, perhaps you need to go with a better vendor.

As you know C$ is an adminstrative share and should not be
viewable for Windows werkstations/servers, however Samba does show them, great design.
I connected more then once to ""My Shared Docs" folder when scanning IP ranges, all without password.
As far as i know you do not need any password for My shared Docs per defalut, i could be wrong dough..

The shared documents folder should require a user account on the machine (but I could be wrong, I haven't looked into it beyond locking down my network at home). Still, your previous statement included mounting the administrative C$ share, and regardless of whether or not you should see it, you should not be able to mount it without an account on the machine. Of course, if someone left an empty password, enabled the guest account, or whatever, it's not hard to get in. I certainly don't have any enabled accounts with the name "Administrator", "Guest", or "", but I know plenty of people with at least one of the three.

Additionally, even if you gained access to "My Shared Docs" without a password, you should not have write access to the folder without access to an account on the machine, and (as far as I can remember) none of the accounts use it by default as their "My Documents" folder.

Then again, even with all of this wonderful, easy-to-access design, SMB shares don't work the way half the users expect them to in mixed networks (even, or especially, networks consisting of Win9x and NT-based computers). It's amazing how many people have trouble accessing files that they believe they should have access to over a network.

RE: Where do all these Be Inc. statements come from!?!??

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:57:00 GMT

"For gods sake man please let Be Inc. rest in peace. It was a mismanaged company with an egomaniac at the helm."

Um, Gates is not an egomaniac??

"THATS what killed Be, not Apple and certainly not MS"

Then why did Microsoft settle? MS admitted no wrongdoing, but they certainly were happy to hand over that cash to make it go away.

@PainKillerR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 19:05:00 GMT

Lets leave the rest it more of a i think you think debate..

>Most NAT boxes have basic firewall capabilities (because it's
NAT means Network Address Translation, so if you talk to my about a NAT box is assume you mean a box that does NAT.
The only basic firewalling NAT does is hiding IP from the outside that is it.

>If your NAT box routes SMB data to the outside world,
I bet i will not. I do not run Windows

>perhaps > you need to go with a better vendor.
I do not need to buy a machine that is capable of NAT, its very very basic stuff all you need is a 486/PI with some RAM and tow NICs. My NAT box is BEHIND my Firewall/Portsentry. My Vendor is Linux/BSD. I do not use SMB server only the client to connect to Windows PC on public networks.

@PainKillerR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 19:12:00 GMT

Just after 5 IP scans i was able to mount a C and C$ without password. This is a Windows XP machine BTW.

ps. i DO NEVER temper with user machines nor do i use their data or storage, i only do this to point out to people that Windows is per default unsecure and should be used with caution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
session request to 212 failed (Called name not present)
Password:
Domain=[WERKGROEP] OS=[Windows 5.1] Server=[Windows 2000 LAN Manager]

Sharename Type Comment
--------- ---- -------
IPC$ IPC Externe IPC
print$ Disk Printerstuurprogramma's
SharedDocs Disk
C Disk
ADMIN$ Disk Beheer op afstand
C$ Disk Standaard-share
Printer Printer hp psc 2100 series

Server Comment
--------- -------

Workgroup Master
--------- -------

Linux works for me

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 19:14:00 GMT

I have Debian installed and in Debian I can actually do (almost) all the same things that I can do in WinXP. Only, I like my Debian better than my WinXP. I find I'm spending much more time in my Debian system. Debian (both in WindowMaker & in XFCE4) is simply easier to use, for me. When the Longhorn comes, I'll expect that I'll wipe out my Win32 partition alltogether, and start using Debian exclusively. Linux just seems to work for me.

@PainKillerR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 19:15:00 GMT

[root@p4 web]# smbmount //111.111.111.111/C /mnt/floppy
1700: session request to 111.111.111.111 (Called name not present)
1700: session request to 111 failed (Called name not present)
Password:
[root@p4 web]# cd /mnt/floppy
[root@p4 floppy]# ls
AUTOEXEC.BAT MPSetupXP.exe Program Files
Bootfont.bin MSDOS.SYS RECYCLER
boot.ini msnaddin.exe Setup.exe
CONFIG.SYS My Music System Volume Information
debugInstaller.txt NTDETECT.COM uninstall.exe
Documents and Settings ntldr WINDOWS
Hersteld document.txt pagefile.sys WindowsXP-KB823980-x86-NLD.exe
hiberfil.sys Phenomedia AG Xi.exe
IO.SYS Prive

Completly readble/writable.

re:@PainKilleR

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 19:18:00 GMT

>Most NAT boxes have basic firewall capabilities (because it's
NAT means Network Address Translation, so if you talk to my about a NAT box is assume you mean a box that does NAT.
The only basic firewalling NAT does is hiding IP from the outside that is it.

>If your NAT box routes SMB data to the outside world,
I bet i will not. I do not run Windows

>perhaps > you need to go with a better vendor.
I do not need to buy a machine that is capable of NAT, its very very basic stuff all you need is a 486/PI with some RAM and tow NICs. My NAT box is BEHIND my Firewall/Portsentry. My Vendor is Linux/BSD. I do not use SMB server only the client to connect to Windows PC on public networks.

Exactly my point. Most people don't build a box just to do NAT, because it requires a base level of hardware that can support so much more than just NAT. Additionally, as I already stated, SMB requests are usually not forwarded from outside the NAT, because they are meant to be used on internal networks, meaning that they should not go through the network address translation. Of course, if you were to configure a basic NAT that simply translated the addresses, it would be up to your computer to realize it was receiving an SMB request from outside the network and either deny the request or ignore it (which most Windows computers will do, except for a bug that was fixed quite some time ago, or a user configuring an option that most users will never need).

Beyond security considerations, most bridges, NATs, firewalls, and so on don't permit SMB traffic to pass through because it's traffic that doesn't need to be routed past these devices under most circumstances. Then again, since everyone loves to route everything over TCP/IP (something SMB was not meant to do), it takes a little more work to determine what you're receiving (like, say, knowing what port it's directed at), but it's still a minimal fix, even if your PC is completely open to these problems (which wouldn't be the case if the Windows machine was kept up to date).

re:not true!!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 19:33:00 GMT

"Longhorn will run on medium range computers of today, however, you will get stuck with none of the features taht make it longhorn including Aero. rather, you will have a win 2k look and feel."

Oh really? What are you basing this on, eh? Articles you've read? True, longhorn CAN boot on older hardware, but it laggs horribly on anything worse than a p4. I know, I have the latest leaked build, mmkay? Justify your comment plz.

re:Some of you window fans are missing the point

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 19:53:00 GMT

Open source OSes give you TOTAL control over the OS, right down to the source code if you want it, not just what some closed source company will allow you to do. The OS is actually yours, as opposed to simply being allowed to use under terms of somebody's EULA.

This is all fine for me under certain conditions. I write software, I learned to do so under Linux (~8 years ago), so if I want to, I can open up the source files and mess with different programs.

The point is simply that this is not what I spend most of my time doing on any given computer. At work I spend most of my time developing software for Windows computers, not because we dictated that it run on Windows, but because our customers did so. The rest of my time is spent writing code that may need to be platform independent at some point in the future, and/or code that needs to run on Solaris. When it comes down to it, that's about 8 hours a day that I'm dealing with code in one way or another, without ever looking at code for the operating system itself. When it comes down to it, if I had to modify code for the operating system while I was getting paid, I'd probably have to go through the legal department to get permission to do so (the reason being that for a great deal of open source, especially "free software", there very definitely are a number of restrictions involved in modifying that source).

At home, on the other hand, I may do some of this here and there, as it suits my needs, but more often than not someone else has already done the work required. I still have one Windows PC in my home, though, for 2 very specific reasons:
1) games... do I really need to explain?
2) my wife needs specific MS software to get through classes taught on that software. This is especially true when the school requires her to learn how to use specific software (or pass a test using that software) to graduate. If she's taking a class that's supposed to teach her to use Excel or Access, what good does it do if I sit her in front of another program that does (more or less) the same thing? It only helps if I do that after she's passed her class, so that she's aware that there is other software that does the same thing, and that at some point she'll have to learn the general concepts rather than the specifics of the application if she wishes to work in a field that requires it (much like I had to learn the MS applications at some point after using other applications in the 80s and 90s).

That is what attracts people to open source.

If that is true, then it's a truly limited audience. Not many people (relatively speaking) are interested in breaking out the source code for app XYZ, the kernel, or the window manager. On the other hand, people hear "free" and think in terms of "no cost", and they become interested, especially if
a) they have experience buying software (rather than just getting it with their computer)
b) they're aware of the penalties for software "piracy"

For most people, what's available in open source covers the majority of their uses. It needs some work here and there, and there are large areas in which it does not properly address people's needs, but for the average users it's fine, and for people interested in operating system research, it's more than likely an excellent place to start (since you have access to the internals of the OS; though you may not find a lot of projects really reaching the cutting-edge unless you're already in a research environment).

What really matters is that people know it's out there, and right now that happens most in areas where people start looking for alternatives. There are still a lot of people not even looking, and they're hard to reach if they don't have a significant problem already. I don't know how best to get through to these people, except to do it at the ground floor, by introducing people to these systems on a 1-to-1 basis, even if it's simply through Knoppix or similar CD-based installations. On the other hand, I know that insulting (and assaulting) them for using Windows isn't the way to do it. Furthermore, assuming that the people that might defend Windows on this board and others "don't get it" or "are missing the point" may be, in itself, missing the point.

Many of us do get it, but taking up the rallying cry every time someone makes a comparison isn't going to make improvements on either side of the fence. If people ignore security because someone told them an OS is "more secure" than Windows, they're a target for future attack (as every Linux system was in the mid-90s when the first worm hit the OS, because many users assumed that just because none had hit meant that none would). Open source doesn't solve every problem, or even every person's problems, it simply solves the core problem with closed source: an individual with the desire and ability to fix their own problem can not always do so. The benefit of this is that sometimes there were a lot of other people with the same problem that didn't have the ability to fix it, and if that person that does have the ability releases it, they can all benefit. There's no guarantee, though, that someone with that ability will encounter the same problem (though the same could be said about closed source, it is beneficial to the company to hire people that have the ability to do so; additionally, having open source means that you have the ability to find someone with the ability to fix it and pay that person to do so, though not many people can judge whether or not a particular person taking their money really has that capability themselves).

What?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 20:02:00 GMT

"(especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of it's low number of discovered vulnerabilities)"

PainKiller please proof this wild assertion with sources.

The number of local vulnerabilities (in system calls) in the Linux kernel and BSD kernels is about the same: about ~3-4 per year with FreeBSD being slightly higher, NetBSD being about the same, and OpenBSD being slightly less.

Source: I've once investigated this in a discussion with Bascule here on OSnews.com, around february. Can't find the thread though.

To the person saying Windows runs on all hardware: That is brilliant news! Please install it on my Z80, my 20 inch monitor and my Philips ghettoblaster. TIA! While you're at it, also please install it native on a SUN SPARC (no can do), SGI MIPS (no can do), Alpha (only old versions of Windows) or Apple PPC (no can do)...

Painkiller

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 20:12:00 GMT

"1) games... do I really need to explain?"

Yes

Errr...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 20:14:00 GMT

Hehe http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq

linux is not ready yet

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 20:42:00 GMT

what is truth is:

1. Windows as dekstop has 90% of worldwide market

2. Linux has nothing, just spechs and empty arguments "windows is insecure, windows is satanic, mr gates is the devil". With this kind of attitude from the linux communitie we are preparing for another decades of MICROSOFT monopoly.

Please linux communitie, stop to talk to much, and CODE a real desktop.

I swear the day than Linux has a DECENT desktop and profesional applications i will switch inmediatly.

Pre-installation of the OS is the key battleground

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 21:17:00 GMT

It doesn't matter whether Longhorn needs a brand new high-end PC or not to run - what *is* important that the vast majority of desktops PCs sold around the world (and almost all brand name desktops) STILL ship ONLY with Windows pre-installed. In 2 years time, almost all new desktop PCs will probably still come with Longhorn pre-installed and then we've got about 3 years after that before Longhorn becomes the world's #1 desktop OS simply due to shipments of new PCs.

The fight here is for some major PC OEMs to be willing to give the customer a choice of OS (or even no OS [which I think is the way to go - OEM washes their hands of all software support and the user installs the OS they wants]) on their desktop PCs. Until that happens, we can go on about Linux being easy to install, the desktop being friendly etc. etc., but it'll never get more than 5% of market share until it comes at least an OS pre-install option by the likes of Dell, HP, IBM etc. None of those big OEMs wants to lose their volume discounts from Microsoft (yes, they're not supposed to threaten this, but you can be sure MS will find a way to punish OEMs that ship a desktop PC without Windows on it).

RE:@Elimar

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 21:18:00 GMT

>Windows XP targets home users who do not have common sense.

If I'm not mistaken a majority of this whole discussion was that Linux was so great and people should switch over to Linux, yada yada ya.

Now I am a huge supporter of Linux and Open Source projects but if you had your average desktop or even business user switching over to Linux you would still have the same virus and worm problem that you have on Windows.

The only reason why Linux does not have that problem now is because 70% or more of the worlds desktop users are not using Linux! You would have to be a fool to think that just because you are using Linux you are safer from outside threats! Those threats will still be there because there is no perfect operating system.

You can see this as more and more individuals started migrating from Windows to OSX, if I am not mistaken there have been 2 huge virus scares this week alone, why? Because more users are using that sytem so there is a greater chance that someone will discover a bug.

As I said before I am a huge supporter of Linux but you can't change peoples minds by going around yelling untruthful statements. Seriously, for once I would like to see the fan boys just take a step back and realize that Linux is not better than Windows and Windows is not better than Linux. They are both operating systems that do completely different things depending on the users needs. You can't go around comparing apples to oranges.

Re: What?

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 21:53:00 GMT

"The number of local vulnerabilities (in system calls) in the Linux kernel and BSD kernels is about the same: about ~3-4 per year with FreeBSD being slightly higher"

If you're suggesting FreeBSD is less secure than Linux, I definitely want to see some sources on that.

re:Some of you window fans are missing the point

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 21:57:00 GMT

"Not many people (relatively speaking) are interested in breaking out the source code for app XYZ, the kernel, or the window manager. On the other hand, people hear "free" and think in terms of "no cost", and they become interested, especially if
a) they have experience buying software (rather than just getting it with their computer)
b) they're aware of the penalties for software "piracy""

Actually, I wasn't emphasizing the source specifically, just the greater control. But by god, yours was one of the longest posts I've ever seen in here. You should save that for the hardcore zealots, I was just making a minor point.

Micrsoft are their own biggest enemy

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 22:17:00 GMT

Micrsoft are their own biggest enemy,
for most people Windows XP is good enough.

For most people Windows 2000, Windows 98 and even Windows 95 are good enough and that combined user base is far bigger competition than Linux and Macintosh combined.

Microsoft need a new realease to give the OEMs like Dell to ship the latest greatest and more profitable version, and the OEMs cannot wait for an excuse to sell even more expensive high powered machines.
I expect direct sales will be slim and OEM sales alone will not be enough. if Microsoft is to stay out of financial trouble (cant have people lose confidence in their shares) it will badly need to expand in other areas and make a success out of the X-Box.

@ Rath

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 22:38:00 GMT

"If you're suggesting FreeBSD is less secure than Linux, I definitely want to see some sources on that."

No, i am not suggesting that since i cannot compare a kernel with an OS nor do i find the compare of an OS which has a base + ports easy, honest when comparing with a OS which doesn't have that distintion.

Also, i have already said what i have compared (and nothing more than that): i have found out that in the last year there have been slightly more vulnerabilities found in the FreeBSD kernel than in the Linux kernel. I have also provided information about how you can find this; unfortunately i haven't been able to re-find this.

The reason why i compared kernels is 1) because loads, if not almost all the software which runs on a Linux kernel-based OS is also able to run on *BSD. If you want MySQL on Linux, and MySQL is vulnerable, you cannot say Linux is insecure because of that since MySQL could just as well run on FreeBSD or Windows XP. Because of such complexity, i stand releaved on the complex aspect which OS is more secure though i am perfectly aware there's loads of generalizing arguments available. 2) everything but the kernel is easy to make harder, if not practically impossible, to intrude with bunches of methods available: stack protectors, ACL's, privseps, chroots, etc which are both available on the subjects we're discussing (plus Linux is only kernel is important here). That task lies for a big part at the desk of the admin(s), not at the OS, they provide it merely. However the kernel's syscall's cannot be protected since those run as root, cannot be privsep'ed (maybe in a microkernel it can be done), chroot makes no sense either nor does the stack protector. So those are extremely important _and_ unique.

RE: linux is not ready yet @steelgunner

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 May 2004 23:45:00 GMT

> 2. Linux has nothing, just spechs and empty arguments "windows is insecure, windows is satanic, mr gates is the devil". With this kind of attitude from the linux communitie we are preparing for another decades of MICROSOFT monopoly.

what is the linux "communitie"? linus? alan? andrew? who? can you please post links to these "spechs"? and what do you mean by "nothing"? linux doesnt exist?

> Please linux communitie, stop to talk to much, and CODE a real desktop. I swear the day than Linux has a DECENT desktop and profesional applications i will switch inmediatly.

can you define "decent" and explain why (obviously) you think explorer.exe is decent and gnome, kde and other window managers arent?

all i hear from you is crap. why dont YOU "stop to talk to much"?

RE I am a Windows user ...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 00:54:00 GMT

A few things about Windows XP:
- Runs great on my P3-450 w/192MB of RAM. The only app that is slow to me is Firefox (an open source app, go figure)
- I can make it faster and stable than ANY Linux distro running Gnome/KDE
- It is possible (and quite trivial) to run Windows worm/trojan/virus/spyware free.

I worked in an environment where we had 1,000 Dell's, all the same model, with every system running a ghosted drive. So Everyone started out with the same setup and same hardware. The desktops were locked down, So about all you could do was create bookmakrs in your web browser.

Windows was NOT stable. I hear of some people running it and it being rock solid for them, the remainding 95% of the workforce and home users don't see this. I have seen a wipe the hard drive and restore from CD crap out on a Dell Box. Let's not even talk about what happens on a system that has been cobbled togther.

REALITY: For most users Windows is not stable.

It may be subjective, but my Linux Installs seem alot more stable, even when Windows has probelms with flakey harware, Linux just RUNS on the stuff. I don't think you can credibly argue that Windows XP is more stable than Mandrake 10.0 or Fedora Core 2. Or even for that matter RedHat 8.

It is not "trivial" for the average user to run a Windows system, trojan and virus free.

FOR WINDOWS: Install adaware, install spybot s&d install Zone Alarm, install Norton Anti-virus. Then manually update and run adaware and spybot every week. Every week check for security updates for windows, (even if you have Automatic Update enabled). Then read Znet for an hour every week. Because sometime in the next six months, something new will come out. I.E. 3 years ago spyware, 2 years ago Malware, 1 Year ago hijackware. We are due for a new windows hinderances. So your "average user" must keep up on this, OR wait till their machine crashes or crawls along and then find out what the new plauge is and what new program like AdAware will fix it.

FOR LINUX: Learn to only run as a regular user, only use ROOT to install new software. And run apt, urpmi, or Redhat update service on a weekly basis.

I know which one seems simpler to me.

Understand I know what I am talking about, I clean up 4 to 8 windows system every month. Doctors, Pastors, Secretaries, they all don't have a clue, they just want to use their computer. You buy it, you plug it in. You answer a couple of questions for the wizard about your Internet Provider and away you go....into the hell of spyware and everthing else Micorosft does not protect you against as you run as a ROOT user on the most popular OS with the most unpatched secuirty holes out there, along with bad security setting defaults.

Whatever...

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 04:54:00 GMT

After reading the article I went and looked at some screenshots of Longhorn. Looks verrry claustrophobic.

For me personally it makes no difference whatsoever.
I use Linux exclusively. Have been for 5 years now.
Although I provide tech support for Win95-XP... and will have to provide it for Longhorn when it comes around.

I have absoluteley no interest in MS developments because I can do everything I want to do with Linux. Aside from that, I just plain prefer it over Windows.
As far as who's going to win? Who cares? As long as developers keep cranking out distros it makes no difference to me how many people are using it.
I have been and will continue to further their efforts the best I can by sending money to those projects I have an interest in.
The reason I've settled in with Debian (1 year now) is that I think the developers and the community behind it will always be here plugging away. I think they love Linux so much that their commitment is here for the long haul.
So, as to who will win, it just doesn't matter. As long as dedicated people who really love Linux stick around, Linux will never go away. It may never become as popular on the desktop as Windows, but it's not going away.
I guess it's a selfish attitude, but as long as it's here for me and I am able to give in return financial backing when I can, I really don't care who else uses it.

As for making Linux easier... well "easy" is a relative term. To me Linux is easy. Installing Debian wasn't the nightmare I'd been led to believe it was. It's not near the breeze that Mandrake and others are to install, but it's also not as hard as it's made out to be. After that, the basic useage is pretty similar.
So, for some, easy is what Linux is. For others it's very difficult. Computer use in general comes easy for many people while others never quite "get it". Those in tech support know exactly what I mean.
I don't think it matters how easy it gets. People get comfortable with things a certain way, and they're very reluctant to change.
I've installed Mandrake for a lot of friends and family. A few of them really clicked with it and like it a lot, and a few of them (my mom, for instance) just plain doesn't want to be bothered. Her computer is how it is. It works. She can do what she likes to do on it, so why change? In her opinion.
Hey, choice is a good thing. In the very least, that's what Linux has done for the world... given those of us who want it A CHOICE! Life's good.
Good article Josh. Good luck on your mission. "God be with you 'til we meet again".

@opti

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 05:06:00 GMT

>Now I am a huge supporter of Linux and Open Source projects
Really?

> but if you had your average desktop or even business user
>switching over to Linux you would still have the same virus
>and worm problem that you have on Windows.
Nope.

anymore crap?

opinition

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:13:00 GMT

Microsoft lamo
Bill Gates GOMOSEXUAL
да и вообще поделк& ;#1080; от M$ полный суксь и отстой

good read.

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:25:00 GMT

i thought it to be a good read.

it's too bad that such articles always manage to whip people
into a frenzy - bashing linux, microsoft and eachother.

By the time Longhorn comes out I'm sure everyone will be sick of the subject

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:07:00 GMT

you got that right...

p2 166? and RE: Huh??

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 11:51:00 GMT

I'm hoping the p2 166 ref is a typo, not an indication of the techlessness of the author, and (RE) what exactly are you going to put on this linux box that you need 10gb of disk space? my last debian setup clocked in at under a gig, with everything you could expect from a full winXP install (graphical desktop, internet browser, im client, email client, media player, remote terminal services (ssh + X), (better) games) plus quite a bit more besides (a full-blown database, secure web server (sorry, but there is no way I'm counting IIS 6 in that catagory - get it out of the kernel), email, news, ftp and DNS servers, sound and image editing software (no sound recorder and MSPaint don't count - although cooledit and psp or photoshop might), a cd ripper, C/c++ compiler, java, perl, python and php interpreters, a full blown IDE, pdf reading and (more importantly) creating software. All free, legal, and installed as part of the operating system. Admittedly my winex, crossover office and vmware (trial) install might have pushed me over the 1gb mark, but unless you're running a decent sized server setup (which renders that comparison with winxp irrelevant), or are one of those people who just HAS to press the 'install everything rather than just everything I want or will use' button, you're not going to need 10gb space to install linux. As mentioned above, I got more bang for my buck with a 1gb debian setup than with the full (about 2gb...or was it more?) winxp setup. To each their own, though.

FC1 runs fine on my 166mhz, 64MB ram....

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 15:32:00 GMT

I installed Fedora1 (with 2.6 kernel) on my 166mhz/64mb ram/900MB hdd box and it runs very well. MUCH Faster than the old win98 in the box.

The things is you don't need all the crap M$ put in windoz. Most of the stuff in windoz is just crap.

Linux is doing great, M$ has almost nothing up their sleeve

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 15:47:00 GMT

I think Linux is going at a great Rate. If Linux Community will just upgrade and add new features to the current set, there is nothing to worry about. I've tested the Longhorn Beta and the only thing I've seen is a large side bar (that I could run much more efficient rate with Karamba). From my perspective, I don't need windows for anything other than games and Adobe/Macromedia Products... (director and photoshop).

Actually I was thinking about doing mkreiserfs on my windows partition.

BEOS!

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 May 2004 18:32:00 GMT

BeOS rules all OS's ;]

I must be one of the few individuals that uses BeOS as his main OS..

Re : Sick already

donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 22 May 2004 01:32:00 GMT

oh dear, you just marked yourself for deletion by the osnews stazi...