Seriously, Linpus Linux--is it any good?
in [Setup]
|
From: Norman Peelman on 31 May 2010 08:46 RayLopez99 wrote: > So for this non-power user who only surfs the net to check email, I'm > thinking that I might get her a $300 ACER Aspire R3610 M330 320G RAM > 2G Mini Desktop LINUX--running Linpus Linux (what a stupid name; > sounds like a disease). > > But my concern is that though the screenshots look good from what I've > seen in Google, if it's already factory installed can she plug it into > a DSL modem supplied by one of the Baby Bells, will the modem be > recognized, and will she be good to go, so she can check her email at > Yahoo email, or, do I have to do something to make the dang system > work? > > This is an ideal user--if ever there was one--for Linux, but unless > Linux needs zero hand holding and installation help, I'm not going to > get it. Personally as a power user I cannot see myself using anything > but a first class OS like Windows. > > Seriously, Linpus Linux--is it any good? Serious replies only, though > I am copying COLA. > > RL If you had installed VirtualBox or VMWare as per a previous thread, you'd have these answers already. So far, you are the only person I know of that distro-hops without ever installing anything. -- Norman Registered Linux user #461062
From: Roger Blake on 31 May 2010 08:55 On 2010-05-31, James Westwood <westwood.spamojames(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > True, however one can not deny that Linux has for some > reason not caught on with the general public. > It just hasn't. Only if your definition of "general public" does not include devices that said public uses such as cell phones and digital television sets, a very large proportion of which run Linux internally. Ditto for devices used in businesses such as office copiers, etc. In fact the sole area where Linux has not made major inroads is on traditional computer desktops. In pretty much every other area of computing Linux is being heavily used and its deployment continues to increase on everything from pocked-sized personal devices to supercomputer clusters. So to say that Linux has "not caught on" is incorrect unless you are specifically limiting the scope of the argument to traditional PCs. -- Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.) "Obama dozed while people froze."
From: The Natural Philosopher on 31 May 2010 09:50 Roger Blake wrote: > On 2010-05-31, James Westwood <westwood.spamojames(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: >> True, however one can not deny that Linux has for some >> reason not caught on with the general public. >> It just hasn't. > > Only if your definition of "general public" does not include devices > that said public uses such as cell phones and digital television sets, a > very large proportion of which run Linux internally. Ditto for devices > used in businesses such as office copiers, etc. In fact the sole area > where Linux has not made major inroads is on traditional computer desktops. > It hasn't made much inroads into my greenhouse either. I've not found it growing in the woods ..as well. :-) Please don't use sloppy language when counteracting trolls. > In pretty much every other area of computing That's better.. Linux is being heavily used > and its deployment continues to increase on everything from pocked-sized > personal devices to supercomputer clusters. So to say that Linux has "not > caught on" is incorrect unless you are specifically limiting the scope > of the argument to traditional PCs. >
From: RayLopez99 on 31 May 2010 09:55 On May 31, 10:22 am, Aragorn <arag...(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote: > read more » "read more". War and Peace prolix post followed. That speaks volumes. If you cannot make your point in one paragraph or less, likely it's some bogus spin. I read your first paragraph, and it is based on a bogus assumption-- that Windows won the desktop wars because it came "preloaded". That's putting the cart before the horse, or saying a log floating downstream is being steered by the ant sitting on it. In fact, people demanded Windows in the late 1980s because at the time, for PCs, it was the only OS that had serious applications--meaning enough people had asked for Windows that a critical mass had been reached, so more people then wanted it, so they could be connected to the others that already had it. The same theory applies to popular restaurants--if you see others eating there, you likely think the food is good, and you eat there, and others see you and want to eat there...etc etc etc. RL
From: Snit on 31 May 2010 10:05
Rick stated in post muidnQG2c8KpAZ7RnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)supernews.com on 5/31/10 4:23 AM: .... >>> Market shares are irrelevant with regard to the quality of an operating >>> system. >> >> True, however one can not deny that Linux has for some reason not caught >> on with the general public. It just hasn't. > > Very few "mainstream" computer users know of Linux based systems. Of > those that do, many don't want to learn a new system and collection of > applications. There is some truth to this, but the fact OS X is doing well, even though it only targets the over $1000 computer system crowd, shows that this is not a big reason people are not moving to a *free* system. If the free system was of better quality, or even equal, there would be *many* people moving to it... far more than have moved to the Mac. It would dwarf the Mac. > Some run into problems and decide to switch back to known > territory. Or not just known, but an environment that serves them better. > Many don't know they can share files/media,etc quite easily. > And many succumb to the anti-FOSS FUD. You start by saying most have not heard of Linux... then say that they know of some anti-FOSS info? What? Really - what anti-FOSS info do you think most people know of? They do not accept the view of your herd. Your mantras do not work. And you see this as them having a bias. It is a sure sign of your bias. .... >> Yet every single unbiased or even slightly biased source shows Linux to >> be hovering around 1 percent. That's pretty bad and why do all these >> numbers seem to agree, within reason? > > Not every unbiased source shows the numbers as being that low. 1-2%. I have not seen any source saying the overall desktop Linux numbers are higher. Last time you tried to show otherwise you pointed to one site that has higher numbers. One site. As if that was meaningful. Heck, my site gets less than 1% hits by Linux. So what? .... >>> There is also no required registration or activation procedure to allow >>> keeping track of the actual deployment and userbase. Ergo, invoking >>> alleged market shares as an argument is in itself already an unreliable >>> argument. >> >> Openoffice makes claims of x number of downloads yet how many people >> have actually seen Openoffice in the wild? I have not. > > I have. Not very often, but I have seen it. Where? >> I suspect people download it, try it and remove it. So does that mean it >> sucks? >> Of course not. >> In fact Openoffice is excellent IMHO. To claim it's taking over >> Microsoft Office is another thing however. >> It's not, IMHO. > > I don't think it will, either. It will not until or unless it competes against it well. Right now it is far behind. -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] |