Desktop-Linux.net put up their own review of XandrOS Desktop 2.0 Deluxe Edition too.
XandrOS Desktop 2.0 Deluxe Edition Review
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Xandros intrigues me. It seems to be very cleanly designed and rigorously tested. I hear support is also good but ultimately, I’m left wondering. Is it any good for us geek, l33t users? If it were free, I’d download it to find out. Can anyone offer advice?
Xandros intrigues me. It seems to be very cleanly designed and rigorously tested. I hear support is also good but ultimately, I’m left wondering. Is it any good for us geek, l33t users? If it were free, I’d download it to find out. Can anyone offer advice?
Nope, it wouldn’t be suitable for the “geeks” and “l33t” users because of its attention to only bundling stable and tested versions of software.
The fact is, many “geeks” and “l33t” users want the latest and greatest piece of software where as this distribution is less focused on the “latest release” and more on the “just works” factor.
> Nope, it wouldn’t be suitable for the “geeks” and “l33t”
> users because of its attention to only bundling stable and
> tested versions of software.
> The fact is, many “geeks” and “l33t” users want the latest
> and greatest piece of software where as this distribution is
> less focused on the “latest release” and more on the “just
> works” factor.
You’re forgetting that many “l33t” users use debian stable which includes features like KDE 2.2, GNOME 1.4, kernel 2.2.20, XFree86 4.1. etc. I would think that Xandros is somewhat more up to date, hence, I fail to see your point.
What I’m talking about is bundling GCC, Emacs, development libraries, GDB, Java. etc. For me, that means it’s ready for “geeks” and “l33t” users.
The Xandros File Manager (XFM) is not an enhanced KDE File Manager, it was built from scratch and contains no GPL code.
Is this correct? Is it released under any sort of friendly open license? Otherwise, it seems to me, Xandros just takes what it likes of the hard work of others, and only gives back what it is forced to.
That’s why I prefer the GPL to a BSD-style license. Companies like this would just grab everything and run if they weren’t forced to share.
I’d really like to know if this is true, it’s always upsetting to hear about a significant player in the open source community who obviously has a problem with giving back to the community. Sort of like the whole SUSE YaST situation, if I remember correctly.
“So XFM was started from scratch by Corel and then completed by Xandros, as a proprietary item devoid of any GPLed code. XFM includes Xandros-specific configuration files to do certain operations. It completely replaces KDE’s Konqueror file manager and web browser. Since XFM is tightly integrated with both KDE and the Linux OS, other applications, such as Desktop and Autorun, are aware of XFM and launch it when needed.
”
http://www.consultingtimes.com/articles/xandros/filemanager/fileman…
*YAWN* Can we get over this? This is the ‘n’th review I have seen. They are all the same…
You guys make me sleepy!
🙂
Enough with the Xandros reviews already! We get it! OSNews staff are obviously stuck in a perpetual drool over Xandros, and they just can’t help fawning over it forever. But please spare the rest of us the agony! Isn’t there something else to review? There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Linux distributions out there! And the *BSDs! Solaris! Windows for crying out loud! Why must you afflict us with yet another Xandros review every blessed day?
Argh!
yet another xandros review…
😉
I agree im pretty tired /w these xandros reviews. It would be great if someone would write one about PClinuxOS.
i liked it, but really isn’t the staff 4 me. Maybe I just can’t do anything but love my mandrake box.
By the way, yesterday I just downloaded PCLinuxOS preview 5, it’s really fantastic.
You must see it, maybe the best live cd I’ve ever seen.
>I agree im pretty tired /w these xandros reviews
Sorry guys, but this is what happens when a distro has just come out: reviews all over the place. In fact, we have a new xandros review coming up next week as well. If you are not interested in these articles, just don’t read them.
XFM is proprietary to Xandros. Xandros has made their patches to KDE and other code publicly available. Isn’t that “giving back”?
How do you square the touted “freedom” of the GPL with your insistence that software houses be “forced” to release their code under that license?
Xandros’ in-house development of XFM has taken nothing from the “hard work of others”.
It appears you are more interested in compeling people to adhere to your own particular ideology that you are to encouraging the development of good software.
i’d like to read a review of bonzai linux, http://developer.berlios.de/projects/bonzai/
also, an article on making a linux desktop system 2.6 ready, eg getting arts to work with alsa and getting cdrecord working with the kernel would also make informative and interesting reads.
good grief not another one!!
> i’d like to read a review of bonzai linux,
> http://developer.berlios.de/projects/bonzai/
For the love of god, not another LiveCD distro! I’ve never understood why we need to have so many of these. They can’t be used on a Server, Workstation, Home Desktop PC even! You can’t store settings. Not to mention that they’re comparatively quite slow. In my 5 years with Linux, I’ve needed a rescue disk TWICE.
Sorry for the rant, just needed to get it off my chest
Anyway, to keep on topic: Instead of LiveCD distro reviews, I’d rather these Xandros reviews (despite there being a LOT of them).
Networking Made Easy:
Sharing a directory over a network in Linux has never been easier, much easier than any other Linux distro I’ve tried including Windows.
Windows is a Linux distro? I wonder what BigBill would say about that. 😉
The reviewer is right though, about the ease of file-sharing in Xandros. Other distros should study and learn.
33% of the comments posted so far are complaints about nothing but Xandros reviews, but your response is — “too bad, we’re going to continue to post Xandros reviews whether you like it or not!”
Xandros is NOT the only distribution recently released. Several have already pointed out that PCLinuxOS is out there and worthy of some review. I don’t think I have seen a single review of THAT! When Mandrake 9.2 came out late last year, I don’t remember seeing more than 3 reviews of it! Even Fedora Core 1, coming from the largest Linux company in the world, did not merit half the reviews we’re getting for Xandros! Other notable products like Windows 2003 and Office 2003 have also suffered similar neglect. Clearly this is either paid advertising, or what I said earlier is very true. Even the Linux distributions out there that aren’t new (Mandrake 9.2, Fedora Core 1, Knoppix, Gentoo etc.) are still worthy of reviews. But the opinion of your readers doesn’t matter now, does it?
“Is this correct? Is it released under any sort of friendly open license? Otherwise, it seems to me, Xandros just takes what it likes of the hard work of others, and only gives back what it is forced to.”
Yeah? Well what have you ever done for anyone?
XFM is proprietary to Xandros. Xandros has made their patches to KDE and other code publicly available. Isn’t that “giving back”?
Very marginally. They take hundreds of programs and an entire graphical interface for their operating system, and return a few changes or fixes to it, possibly only because they are forced to. How is that an even trade?
How do you square the touted “freedom” of the GPL with your insistence that software houses be “forced” to release their code under that license?
Freedom is a buzzword used by politicians and software developers, I don’t subscribe to that. I just think if someone gets a lot of something free from someone else, they should at least attempt to give back something of equal value in return. Karma and all that, eh. The open and free software world wouldn’t exist if KDE or Gnome tried acting like Xandros.
On one hand you have people working hard to promote a new software ideology, and on the other, people grabbing the bits they can to make money off the work of others.
Xandros’ in-house development of XFM has taken nothing from the “hard work of others”.
I think you are intelligent enough to figure this one out. KDE was the “hard work of others,” as was the Linux kernel, the GNU toolset, the X server, etc. These are each far more impressive and complex than XFM, and yet they are freely available, and Xandros uses them. Why don’t they give something amazing back to the community that has allowed them to exist? Something more on par with what they have taken.
@Kingston
Yeah? Well what have you ever done for anyone?
That is an amazingly, overly-broad question.
The problem you’re having is that you’re stuck in some kind of RMS feedback loop. You need to get over the fact that not every piece of software written for linux is going to be open source. Xandaros didn’t rip off KDE or anybody else.
If your crying about the recent Xandros reviews and lack of other distro reviews, please take the time and PROVIDE YOUR OWN! It just so happens that Xandros works really well…thus users are all the more likely to take the time and provide a review. You won’t find many users giving reviews of distro/products that completely suck.
Why not you write that review? Reviews don’t write themselve.
The problem you’re having is that you’re stuck in some kind of RMS feedback loop. You need to get over the fact that not every piece of software written for linux is going to be open source. Xandaros didn’t rip off KDE or anybody else.
Who’s RMS?
Anyhow, I understand not everything written for Linux is going to be open source. I don’t however, understand why everyone is okay with that fact that a company that is obviously benefitting almost entirely from the work of others, and giving little (to my knowledge) in return.
And save your, “j00 R a RMS z0mbey!” crap for someone else. I don’t even currently have a system running any sort of open operating system. Just plain old legit WinXP boxes. I just believe, if a company is going to be a member of the open source community, claim to support open source ideals, and benefit from open source code, then they should probably contribute on a level on par with what they take.
I like to call this line of thinking “fair” and “obvious.”
“Xandros intrigues me. It seems to be very cleanly designed and rigorously tested. I hear support is also good but ultimately, I’m left wondering. Is it any good for us geek, l33t users? If it were free, I’d download it to find out. Can anyone offer advice?”
Certainly,a fterall its Debian under the hood.
I personally find it to be agood thing to have many reviews of Xandros, this way people will have a more balanced view of this distribution. Remember Xandros releases only once a year, unless you count the intermediate release which is really only polish, nothing new, so let them have their glory.
New news won’t hurt.
>>…They take hundreds of programs and an entire graphical interface for their operating system, and return a few changes or fixes to it, possibly only because they are forced to. How is that an even trade?
How is that different from any other Linux distribution? All distributions include the same “hundreds of programs”, and, typically, KDE and Gnome. Most distributions that are actually backed by a business and not a fly-by-night hobbyist also tweak their interface a little bit. Because it’s GPL code their tweaking, they’re all required to release their patches. What else do you want them to do? Put Torvald’s kids through college?
>>Freedom is a buzzword used by politicians and software developers, I don’t subscribe to that.
Bizarre. Try being not free. Perhaps you’ll change your mind.
>>…if someone gets a lot of something free from someone else, they should at least attempt to give back something of equal value in return. Karma and all that, eh. The open and free software world wouldn’t exist if KDE or Gnome tried acting like Xandros.
Xandros is meeting the requirements of the GPL. You seem to thnk that the GPL and open source requires people to act as members of some utopian charity. You seem to arguing that anyone who uses a GPL’d application is obligated to put back another application of “equal value”. Not withstanding the question of who determines that “equal value”, that appears to mean that a distribution could not include, for example, emacs, unless that distribution employed developers to develop a wholely new GPL’d text editor comparable to emacs. Again, bizarre.
The open software world existed quite fine for a decade or more before KDE and Gnome appeared. The KDE and Gnome teams chose to release their software under their respective licenses. Those licenses do not require a quid pro quo from anyone who uses their software. Such a requirement would be impossible to meet.
>>On one hand you have people working hard to promote a new software ideology, and on the other, people grabbing the bits they can to make money off the work of others.
In case you missed it, the “free” in the GPL has nothing to do with money. The GPL specifically addresses how to sell GPL software. Yes, this allows money to be made off of GPL software that was provided without cost. That was someone’s decision. They could have sold their software and be perfectly in compliance with the GPL. In fact, every releasing GPL software could start charging for it tomorrow and they’d all still be in compliance with the GPL.
>>KDE was the “hard work of others,” as was the Linux kernel, the GNU toolset, the X server, etc. These are each far more impressive and complex than XFM, and yet they are freely available, and Xandros uses them. Why don’t they give something amazing back to the community that has allowed them to exist? Something more on par with what they have taken.
More utopian dreaming. Xandros is a business, not a charity. Get over it. Linux distributions are under no moral obligation to “give back” “something amazing” to anyone. They’re under an oligation to be in compliance with the licenses of the software they include.
Bizarre. Try being not free. Perhaps you’ll change your mind.
By that I meant I don’t throw around the word “freedom” just trying to make my ideas sound morally just. From my experience, those using the words “free” and “freedom” the most have the least idea what they truely mean.
In case you missed it, the “free” in the GPL has nothing to do with money. The GPL specifically addresses how to sell GPL software. Yes, this allows money to be made off of GPL software that was provided without cost.
Okay… I never said or thought otherwise.
More utopian dreaming. Xandros is a business, not a charity. Get over it. Linux distributions are under no moral obligation to “give back” “something amazing” to anyone. They’re under an oligation to be in compliance with the licenses of the software they include.
Utopian dreaming? Huh? Yes, they are a business, very good, a business operating only because of code contributed by others.
They aren’t under any obligation to open the code, you are right. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.
Look, it’s really not that complicated, they have used a lot of open code, none of you contrary and argumentative folks can debate that. Their business only exists because of open source, yet they refuse to release their most significant application under the same terms.
I don’t care about the GPL, RMS, “freedom,” whether they are legally required to, or any of that BS. They are taking a lot, they should give a lot. Currently their practices are hypocritical at best.
Proprietary and OSS software can and probably should coexist quite well. I don’t particularly have a problem with a company writing proprietary software that runs on top of OSS software. I would actually like to see more of it…porting of popular apps and games is about the only thing linux is lacking at this point, and you can’t really expect those companies to open that source code either.
If you don’t like the idea of someone profiting from OSS software, then run Debian (as I do, although I contribute both money and time to the project, which I feel is a fair trade for the software I use on a daily basis).
The GPL is not meant to restrict development; it is more about making sure that if you use OSS code in your app you release your app’s source code.
Xandros will most likely either become a live cd or produce a Xandros version, as will everyone else cause IMHO it is the way of the future of installation of Linux.
Think about it, you put a cd in your blank pc and boot up in 2 – 5 minutes and have a fully functional, working desktop, THEN you install the operating system, while working on a fully fuctionable, working desktop, surfing the web, writing documents, playing any included games, etc.
>>I don’t care about the GPL, RMS, “freedom,” whether they are legally required to, or any of that BS. They are taking a lot, they should give a lot. Currently their practices are hypocritical at best.
You would apply this same condemnation to every other Linux distribution? They all package essentially the same software.
Why is it hypcritical for a distribution to include software if that distribution meets every requirement imposed by the software’s license? The software was released under these licenses specifically because its developers wanted it to be picked up by others, used by others, modified by others, and repackaged and distributed by others.
Are you suggesting that the GPL and other open source licenses are ethically deficient? That all Linux distributions are required to “give back” in equal measure in return for the software they distribute? If so, who do they “give back” to? How, and who, determines when they have given back enough? If Distribution A includes emacs and vi, while Distribution B includes on emacs, are you suggesting that Distribution A is obligated to “give back” more than Distribution B?
>Look, it’s really not that complicated, they have used a lot of open code, none of you contrary and argumentative folks can debate that. Their business only exists because of open source, yet they refuse to release their most significant application under the same terms.
Nor should they unless they wanted to go out of business. XFM is central to Xandros’ distro and is the result of a lot of programming man hours and funding. To turn around and give that away would be enormously foolish.
No Linux distro gives back as much as it gets, not one, not even remotely close. GPL software is released under the license specifically so that others can use it, incorporate it into their products, and contribute back. That’s exactly what Xandros’ and every other distro does.
Xandros’ and a lot of other distro contribute their changes back to the GPL projects they use. That’s entirely within the spirit and letter of the GPL. They’re under no moral or licensing obligation to go above and beyond the GPL.
What’s curious to me is why you’re so insistent on singling out Xandros’ for this criticism to the exclusion of every other distro out there.
don’t you agree, just tell me which of the distros isn’t gona be like that
I think that Mandrake, Suse or others are on that path. Just hope that some good people will make it avaible at some place, just like emule (doesn’t it rock?)
“I don’t even currently have a system running any sort of open operating system. Just plain old legit WinXP boxes.”
Did you think about what you were typing?
“That’s why I prefer the GPL to a BSD-style license. Companies like this would just grab everything and run if they weren’t forced to share.”
In a nutshell, thats what ALL of the companies who sell a distro are eventually going to do. Look for Suse/Novell to be into this big. It seems that nobody wants to acknowledge people are make money on Linux. More than likely all of the distro’s who are not making a profit will be gone sooner or later. Very few things happen on this planet until something gets sold at a profit; Linux will be no different in the long run.
Either noone understands me, or they are arguing just for the hell of it.
It is prefectly fine by me if a company profits off of Linux. Linux wouldn’t be half what it is without any commercial support. I fully support the sale of Linux distrobutions, I don’t think they should all be free like Debian or Gentoo, there need to be powerful commercial entities with the funding and manpower to develop and support Linux both financially and legally. As the SCO/IBM trials have shown.
I don’t have anything against that! So stop being foolish and arguing in support of commercial Linux products. I already agree with you!
However, I feel that if a company is going to benefit from open source they should try to contribute back on par with what they take, as I already have said numerous times. Someone claimed that no distro does this, to this I reply, at least they don’t blantantly try not to. If your business thrives due to the open source and standard business model, you should fully embrace and support it.
Do you people even think of where Linux would be, or where it will end up, if the companies that are growing due to open source start to hide their new developments?
Lindows is working to create Nvu. They don’t have to make it open source, but they are. That is what every Linux distro should be doing, and most are. At least trying to contribute significant project to the community.
What’s curious to me is why you’re so insistent on singling out Xandros’ for this criticism to the exclusion of every other distro out there.
Because the topic is a Xandros review. I don’t like the idea of the YaST license either, but this isn’t a SUSE thread.
It’s nice that the loyal opposition is out in full force today, but is there a single person that agrees or even understands me to any degree?
>>More than likely all of the distro’s who are not making a profit will be gone sooner or later.
If they aren’t making a profit, they’ll go broke and disappear.
The only way to sustain any effort is to continue to imput resources to the project. Making a profit is the way that is commonly done. The only way to sustain an effort, such as a Linux distribution, without depending on profit is to depend on either donations or taxes.
You’re sitting there on a Windows XP box and whining about a small linux distro(out of the god knows how many) not giving back. Simple solution. Just don’t use Xandros.
>>…is there a single person that agrees or even understands me to any degree?
Frankly, you’re making it very difficult for people to understand you. We’re not telepathic.
It looks like you argument boils down to this: Any Linux company includes proprietary code in their distribution has committed some kind of moral transgressin. You are arguing that these companies should “give back” something, but you haven’t said what you think they should give back?
Xandros, SUSE, etc., put one or two proprietary programs in their distributions in order to add value and increase sales. No added value, no sales, and one less Linux distribution.
It’s very difficult to follow your logic, but you appear to stating that no Linux distributor has a moral right to include anything but GPL’d code, and that any code they develop internally must be GPL’d. To the extent that they include proprietary code, Linux is doomed.
If that is, in fact, your argument, I couldn’t disagree more. The success of Linux will be determined by the quality and variety of the applications that run on it, not by licensing schemes, and not by rigorous adherence to some kind of ideological rant about open software.
I recently purchased Xandros Deluxe and received a great discount because I am a member of GRLUG. Email Xandros if you are interested.
I love Xandros so far. I setup a new machine with Windows 2000 Pro and Xandros Deluxe as a dual boot. The machine runs beautifully, no problems so far. I know little about Linux but find Xandros easy to use.
I have used Mandrake and Suse, but did not like them nearly as well.
> Xandros will most likely either become a live cd or produce
> a Xandros version, as will everyone else cause IMHO it is
> the way of the future of installation of Linux.
I strongly disagree. Most users (myself included) just want to get the installation over with. The effort of having other apps running during this is wasted. Name *1* LiveCD distro today that comes with a proper installer. Hell, even Knoppix doesn’t even come with one. They have a guide for creating partitions and copying raw files across with the commandline in a similar way to gentoo. It hardly seems to me like the way of the future.
From http://download.linuxtag.org/knoppix/KNOPPIX-FAQ-EN.txt:
1.) initialize a free partition with the ext2 file system and mount it on
/mnt/knoppix, for example.
2.) cp -a /KNOPPIX/* /mnt/knoppix/
3.) set up /mnt/knoppix/etc/fstab and /mnt/knoppix/etc/lilo.conf for the
new system (Caution: symlinks in /boot initially point to the Ram
disk!), run lilo.
4.) mkdir /mnt/knoppix/home/knoppix &&
chown knoppix.knoppix /mnt/knoppix/home/knoppix
5.) Reboot, try the system out, fix any broken settings.
(No guarantees.)
Sorry, the link got messed up. I put a ‘colon’ on the end. It’s meant to be:
http://download.linuxtag.org/knoppix/KNOPPIX-FAQ-EN.txt
Look people, if you are tired of reading Xandros reviews then get busy and write a review on your favorite distro. I have not tried Xandros 2 and I may not, but quite a few people obviously are and they are writing about their experiences. So I repeat, write a review about (Your favorite distros name here) and send it in.
XFM is something the coders from Xandros created from scratch.
They did not download and modify it. They did not take the source and add their own neato things to it.
They chose to make it look like Konquerer because that’s what folks are familiar with in KDE.
It is not a dressed up dressed up Konquerer.
It contains NO GPL licenced code.
Xandros is not under a legal or a moral obligation to give away the source for their distro’s killer app.
I fully agree with the notion that Xandros is legally and morally obligated to share their changes to programs that are covered under the GPL. And if they don’t share stuff they’ve taken from the GPL pool, then, hell yes, they should be taken to task for it.
But Xandros is no more obligated to relase its copyrighted, proprietary XFM than Apple is obligated to give away the code to Aqua or Steven King is obligated to give away free copies of his next book.
XFM is something the coders from Xandros created from scratch.
They did not download and modify it. They did not take the source and add their own neato things to it.
They chose to make it look like Konquerer because that’s what folks are familiar with in KDE.
It is not a dressed up dressed up Konquerer.
It contains NO GPL licensed code.
Something that’s always intrigued me is – How does anyone know if they have used GPL code, when their code is locked up for no one to see? How can anyone be truly sure their file manager contains no code from KDE?
I’m not tying to suggest something here, I just wondered how we could be truly sure, without doubt!
Till
I agree – XFM’s configuration and “About” dialogs look uncannily like those found in Konqueror/KDE – either they redeveloped them from scratch without ever looking at the code, or they have integrated elements of KDE binaries in some way?? I would be interested to hear some commentary on this from Xandros.
>I would be interested to hear some commentary on this from Xandros.
Their commentary is exactly what you’ve read here. XFM is not Konqurer, it is not based on Konqurer but was developed in-house and contains no GPL code.
stop that Xandros Bashing, Folks!
Okay, honestly, we can’t until somebody looks line for line at the code.
(On the other hand, nobody’s accused Apple of basing Aqua on X Windows code …)
However, if you’re going to steal from the GPL pool, why the hell would you take Konquerer? I can think of several other applications that are much more worthy of a “swipe and upgrade” than the file browser
Hell, I’d steal X Windows or even an environment like Gnome or KDE and scour off all the kruft and less than stellar part of their UI and call that something else before I’d nab Konquerer.
Hell, I’d take the one *nix app that I’d actually pay retail for, Evolution, and park a candy coated shell on it and call it mine all mine and port it to Windows and OS X before I’d steal a file browser.
Xandros isn’t going to risk their name, their reputation, and lawsuits over a freakin stupid file manager.
I’ve got XFM and Konqueror open next to each other right now and I don’t see a pair of twins. I see that XFM uses the KDE Help Center, and says it does. I also see an effort was made to tweak KDE, and XFM, to create a consistent design.
I think it is more than a bit silly to suggest Xandros stole sosurce from KDE simply because they sell their product. Zealots who think a Linux business can survice by giving it all away need to explain where the resources will come from.
I’ve used Xandros and am pretty impressed… but how can a desktop os for newbies not have Mplayer. I know it’s easy to apt from an unofficial source but how many newbies are going to figure that out. Mplayer is the only program that I need to have on my computer regardless of the os whether it is my iMac, Windows or Linux box.
@ enloop
I wasn’t suggesting that Xandros had actually done so, I was interested in knowing how anyone could tell for sure that any company building software was not stealing GPL code. In the windows world there have been many cases where people have stolen code, I’m not sure if it’s happened in the linux world but it wouldn’t surprise me
I guess what gets peoples back up, is that the free software foundation and the popular GPL license was created to give people freedom from being locked into a proprietary system. Xandros locking away their file manager goes against this ideal and is not in the spirit of the whole open source movement. If Linus and everyone else that writes free software were to follow the same path, we would not have the linux we have all come to love and support. Remembering that freedom does not mean free as in free beer, no one I don’t think has a problem with people charging money for their code. As has been shown before, you can still make plenty of money without locking people into a proprietary system!
Till
I’m interested in using good software. I’m not prepared to deliberately avoid good software simply because it is proprietary. If the open source world wants people like me to avoid using software like XFM, they should write something better.