Lycoris boasts that it is going to make you “Throw away Windows for good and get hooked on the best ever release of Desktop/LX”. The flashy website and bold statements make it seem like a dream come true. Is it? TuxMe takes a look at whether it’s all true or just marketing mumbo-jumbo.
Quick Look At Lycoris Desktop/LX 1.4
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
KDE… love it or hate it, it’s not my cup of tea.
…
If I was going to pay for software and support I would choose Xandros first
Xandros is KDE too. Why doesn’t he just use Ubuntu when it’s free, and is Gnome which he prefers and is the future of the standard Linux desktop anyway.
I saw that he mentioned Lycoris Desktop/LX isn’t free a few times. That is correct, although why mention it? So what? Linux was not meant to be free as in beer (get it? Beer isn’t free), rather Free as in speech. So does it matter? No. If it works for you, why not support the people who spents hours and days and months making the software you use work.
Also, OpenOffice was not included because Lycoris has a ProductivityPak. Lycoris seems to be changing things though and OpenOffice with the Lycoris enhancements (minus the commerical Bitstream fonts, etc..) are included in Iris now.
“….and is Gnome which he prefers and is the future of the standard Linux desktop anyway.”
With repspect..is that official or just your opinion?….
“With repspect..is that official or just your opinion?….”
Must be a trend
“Linux was not meant to be free as in beer (get it? Beer isn’t free)”
I definitely agree with you, but you’re wording, and the additional pun, will make it confusing for many readers. So I will attempt to make it clear for others before they start flaming you.
If the reader is new to Linux, things can get pretty confusing if you don’t know the different meanings of the word “free”.
When a linuxie mentions the “free beer” example, he usually does it to differentiate among the different meanings for the word, since in the english language, the term has multiple meanings, and when you are talking about software licenses, its better if you know the difference.
Linux’s philosophy promotes it to be free as in FREEDOM. In other words, as in “free speech”. But as D3M0N said, the philosophy does not force you to give it away at no cost. As in zero money. As in getting a free beer. So, yes, why are people demanding for Linux to be free as in free beer, when beer isn’t free??
I believe that people who have come to Linux have become spoiled in getting the two kinds of frees. So much, that many already demand both, and they actually think that according to the philosophy, it’s supposed to be like that. But that’s not true.
Linux has a cost, and many linux advocates seem to forget that. Linux costs money and time to developers (and hosters), and the fact that not every developer passes the cost on to the user (customer?) should still be thanked for. Not demanded.
So one should not be outraged if a Linux developer does charge money for it.
I am certain that not even 1% of all those rampaging and evangelizing about Ubuntu Linux have made *any* monetary contribution towards it. (No, I don’t have statistics, but I can be proven right by informal research pretty easily). Not every linux distro has a millionaire philantropist behind them like they do, unfortunately. And that should not be taken for granted.
My point to the reader is, choose whatever linux option you want, whichever suits you. But while you go along trying to pick, don’t dismiss those that charge money for them, on the mere factor that they are “heretic” towards the linux philosophy.
Heck, you can even see it like this> If you pay for a product with money, you have absolutely much more right to SCREAM to the company and DEMAND for stuff, WITHOUT GUILT.
If you are a person of principles, that is much harder to do with a project with both kinds of free.
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=165&slide=1
I expected this article to address whether or not Lycoris is a Windows replacement, but it never quite got there.
Thanks for clearing that up. Exactly what I meant.
present and previous Lycoris fans should take a look at Turkix. IMHO, Turkix has overtaken Lycoris in its goal to be a firendlier choice for a linux that a Win user can feel comfortable with. Why not take a look at it.
>> and is Gnome which he prefers and is the future of the standard Linux desktop anyway.
Welcome to the real world, Neo. In this world, GNOME is not the only thing. Get used to it. In fact you reek strongly of Micorsofties who say: Windows was the past, is the present, and the future ….
When will you learn that changing the button order does not make a great desktop? And usability, well that’s highly subjective.
Oh and not to forget Ubuntu, its been hyped way beyond its capabilities (Is it the millionaire behind it that’s talking?)
Moving along from the “free” yadayada debating…
—-
“I wish that the selection of the video card options was a little more elegant. There is no probing of video cards or if there was, it got mine wrong. That leaves it up to the user to know what hardware is inside their machine; not an ideal situation. ”
—–
This brings up a point that has annoyed me for quite some time. I am not a real big fan of autodetection. If any distro autodetects everyones hardware first time then fine but we know this can’t really happen on x86.
First of all, I only want to install my distro ONCE. One distro, ONCE. Not every 6 months like Windows. This means the install proceedure is less important to me than the rest of my Linux experience every day. I should only every need to upgrade from time to time.
So, what I propose to see is what the author sees as “not an ideal situation”. I would like to see an install option:
1) Autodetection
2) Select your hardware
For people who don’t have a clue whats inside the box or don’t care – option 1.
For those who know exactly whats in their box (hopefully the majority of serious Linux users) – option 2.
The installer should do its best to list as much known hardware as possible and give the user feedback on any hardware issues, unsupported hardware, confilcts or bugs it knows. It should be that easy.
This article wouldn’t sway me one way or the other. Is it me..or was this just too short and too lame on facts?
That is one short article, most of it talks about the installation, then the writer mentions how Lycoris isn’t free a couple of times and finally ends by saying he doesn’t like KDE and tried to fill in the rest with a link to screenshots.
Whatever happened to articles that would go beyond the installation, I’ve seen too many that basically say: “Yeah, so it installed ok and it has KDE/Gnome, I’ll give it a 5 out of 5. The end.” If it were an actual installation guide (say perhaps for BSD which is more difficult to install) then I could understand but this is rediculous.
look even better, sorry if my shocks you.