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 439985
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why?
by pandronic on Thu 9th Sep 2010 06:46 UTC 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[3]: Why?
by Moredhas on Thu 9th Sep 2010 12:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

I agree the Linux desktop environments can be a little alien at first, but I find Gnome, and any program that pays the slightest bit of attention to the Gnome HIG to be pretty consistent. Granted, compared to OS X, it is a little messy, but its wonderful compared to the jungle of Windows programs that do all sorts of crazy thing like ignore OS wide window decoration, or use their own, completely incomprehensible icons when perfectly good, stock system ones exist and are easy to implement. I'm more of a year at a time person when it comes to hopping between Windows and Linux, so my opinion is born from getting used to Linux and exploring the differences. Even (especially) the superficial ones for a GUI junkie like me.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Why?
by pandronic on Thu 9th Sep 2010 17:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

It agree that there are a lot of widgets and default applications that look remarkably well in Linux, but IMO there are not enough of them yet.

In Windows I try to stick when possible with MS products. In the last years the quality of their GUIs has been really great. Otherwise there are so many applications for Windows that it's impossible not to find a good one. Unfortunately that's not true of Linux and this is a major hurdle.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You can talk about how much you like the functionality all day but people are superficial when it comes to electronics and Gnome looks more like a competitor for Win98 than OSX or Win7.

KDE is the only modern looking desktop available in the Linux world.

Not only that but KDE has a better development team. The Gnome team isn't sure of where to go as can be seen by the Gnome 3 shell.

The Linux community is going it have to get over its love of Gnome if it wants to compete with OSX and Win7. Gnome is too far behind.

Reply Parent Score: 1