Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Sep 2010 22:09 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems There's this hole here at OSNews, a hole left when Psystar was dealt a devastating blow by Apple's legal team. That whole saga provided a nice steady stream of news articles that's been dried up for a while. However, Psystar was not the only clone maker out there - what happened to Quo Computer, that clone maker with an actual real-world store front? They're still here, and just launched a new product.
Thread beginning with comment 439944
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why?
by kaelodest on Thu 9th Sep 2010 00:05 UTC
kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

Well. - -- --- Whatever get's Thom Page Hits. But my real question is Why can't Linux capture any mindshare. I mean for real. I have used it off and on since 1998 and I generally keep a debian server running headless in the house. But that is just because I might need to run an esoteric lab test or some security testing, and I do it all from a terminal. So it isn't like I am some GUI bound designer or a simple Mac head. So my question (aside from Thom's odd fascination with Mac Clones) is: Why Can't a Linux Reseller make web headlines.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why?
by tylerdurden on Thu 9th Sep 2010 01:37 in reply to "Why?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Well, if you count android as linux... it seems linux has plenty of mindshare. Alas, it is just not on the desktop. And that is probably not going to change (ever?).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why?
by kaelodest on Thu 9th Sep 2010 05:02 in reply to "RE: Why?"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

I guess there is a point, where we as the thinking 5 maybe 10 percent of the technology centric users have to ask. Am I a consumer or a producer. I like the Mac as a producer, but it is unashamedly a consumer platform. But then I return to the question - even with Mandrake and Ubuntu why can I not get other people to like linux. This sunday I was talking it over with a very good technician (or so I thought) and all she knew was helpdesk and not in a sensible or practical way. (Mostly Windows and PC and Luck) so I gave her a Ubuntu 10 server disk. She called the next day and was confused that the install didn't have a GUI. Well as long as the answer is based on what I can Google and not based on practical knowledge and experience then we (knowledge workers) are doomed to be replaced.

And No I do not count Android as Unix any more than I count iOS as unix - (Or 3.5 10^6 ATMs as Valid Vista Installs)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why?
by pandronic on Thu 9th Sep 2010 06:46 in reply to "RE: Why?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

My take on this is that Desktop Linux needs some polish and stability. Sometimes I try to give some distro an honest chance. I install it as my main OS and start using it full time. So far the best lasted about 3 days. Every time I need to do something I hit a show stopper. Then for hours at a time I try to find a solution. What I usually end up with is a hack or a pathetic workaround that kind of works. Also the UI is not very well thought out and not very consistent across applications. Everything looks patched and put together.

Desktop Linux lacks vision, it lacks a direction, it needs a leader (a person or a company) with deep pockets that knows where to take it. In fact, I believe that this is why Android, as a Linux flavor, took off.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why?
by jbauer on Thu 9th Sep 2010 09:18 in reply to "Why?"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

Well. - -- --- Whatever get's Thom Page Hits. But my real question is Why can't Linux capture any mindshare. I mean for real. I have used it off and on since 1998 and I generally keep a debian server running headless in the house. But that is just because I might need to run an esoteric lab test or some security testing, and I do it all from a terminal. So it isn't like I am some GUI bound designer or a simple Mac head. So my question (aside from Thom's odd fascination with Mac Clones) is: Why Can't a Linux Reseller make web headlines.


Because the Linux community still can't get the basics right and the user experience is terrible. And the standard answer to the criticisms is and always will be denial.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why?
by Moredhas on Thu 9th Sep 2010 20:37 in reply to "RE: Why?"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

There's plenty of denial, but denial isn't always denial. Nobody would know the difference though, what would people tnk if you screamed out that you weren't crazy? Sometimes the denials are just poorly expressed explanations that you do something differently in Linux - or when arguing about functionality, the Linux fan would maintain Linux DOES have whatever you're argung about, but neglect to say how to do it. Some of us aren't the most helpful breed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:24 in reply to "Why?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I'm all for running Linux on the server, I've plugged ClearOS on my blog numerous times. Windows Server 2008 R2 is about $700 plus you have to buy CALs so especially for someone with Nix experience there can be some savings.

But on the desktop it doesn't offer a good value proposition when Windows 7 is only $100.

You still run into compatibility issues with Linux and there isn't a good selection of commercial software. So you are basically forced to use suboptimal open source alternatives that are already available for Windows.

Open source is its own worst enemy in that its best programs inevitably make their way to Windows and OS X. It is impossible for Linux to have a killer app that drives adoption. If an open source program is really useful then it will be ported everywhere.

Linux distros are also unfriendly to commercial software by design. Then you have all sorts of rough edges like updates and sound problems.

But yes when a company takes a liability risk to install OSX on whiteboxes there is clearly something wrong with the Linux desktop. My advice to the Linux community would be to stop following Stallmanology and start working with commercial companies. Accept that not all software can be open source and work at bringing in commercial companies that can add value to the platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2

AMEN!
by kaelodest on Fri 10th Sep 2010 01:15 in reply to "RE: Why?"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

I like Stallman. I remember when emacs finally clicked for me. But I am tired of people who do not program trying to tell me what to do with my source. I think that the GNU has a lot to offer but the Circus and the Bazaar seems to have turned into The Ivory Tower and the Bazaar. YUP apple is included in that. I am More than willing to release an App as source, and devil may care. But the Idea that something that i do for 'work' should be held to some academic ideal - no - I cannot go for that.

Reply Parent Score: 1