Is Windows 7 the Linux-netbook killer?

When it comes to PCs and laptops, Microsoft had little to fear with Linux as much as it does the Mac. But now the new threat to Windows comes in the form of 'netbooks' - lightweight, low-cost laptops that typically use Intel's low-powered Atom processor and don't come with substantial amounts of RAM or powerful graphics processors. They're designed mainly for browsing the Web, handling e-mail, writing memos, and taking care of simple word-processing or spreadsheet chores.

Netbook sales will reach an estimated 60% growth in 2010, compared with 18% growth for standard notebooks says a September BNP Paribas report. So obvious is the future in Netbooks. But the hardware demands of Vista can't be met by Netbooks (and a reason why Microsoft keeps extending XP's lifetime) and Linux is ideally suited for lower-powered netbooks. At least 30% of the existing low-cost netbooks run on Linux.

Microsoft sees Linux on netbooks not just as a niche market, but as a threat to Microsoft's desktop share as well. It's finally taking Linux seriously as a desktop operating system, and Windows 7 is looking to be the tool Microsoft has designed to kill Linux. At Microsoft's recent Professional Developers Conference, where the pre-beta of Windows 7 was unveiled, Steven Sinofsky, Windows Senior Vice President, showed off Windows 7 on his Lenovo S10 and said it used less than half of the netbook's 1GB of RAM.

Jerry Shen, CEO of Asus, announced that he plans to release versions of the Eee PC powered by Windows 7 in mid-2009, including a touch-screen version. With netbook return rates much higher for Linux than Windows XP versions, the high point for Linux netbook sales will be from now until the launch of Windows 7. After that will come the inevitable decline. Ultimately, consumers will be the ones to tell us what they really want in a device like this, and how they would use them.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows XP gets another stay of execution

Next Story

Live Search for iPhone

107 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What I really don't understand is that netbooks are growing in size, look at Asus' line and you'll see there already not much of a price difference between their 10" and a regular 14" laptop.

I don't know how Microsoft will end up getting Windows 7 on a netbook unless they create a "lite" version of Windows 7 where its focused on netbook devices. That would make absolute sense.

Of course, by the time Windows 7 comes out (SP1 at the latest), netbooks will be more powerful, and perfectly capable of handling even Vista.

It's hilarious how the market reacts to itself. If hardware advances faster than software, software becomes bloated and wasteful. If software advances faster than hardware, holy crap the sky is falling. Then it swings back in the other direction again, and we all forgot what we were just talking about.

All of that aside, things can only get better for the consumer. As work progresses, we may see a version of windows that runs smoothly with the hardware of a netbook AND Linux versions well get better support in terms of connectivity and so on.

Microsoft isn't just competing against Linux and OS X, they're competing against perceptions of their OS. People aren't just deciding they want alternative OSes, they have been around for a while and viable for a while. They are actively rejecting Windows, because of the unusability of such a system. It's not something you can just install and forget about, it needs active attention, and there are less and less people with the know-how willing to focus on maintaining these installations. Microsoft was previously relying on hobbyists to maintain such installations, but hobbyists want to do more than wipe viruses and recover preferences. The power users are moving onto more interesting things and are tired of the same old on Windows. Windows is more of a chore to use daily and to maintain, and that's what MS has to focus on, not beating specs on a netbook. There will always be areas where alternatives are making inroads and it will not serve MS to focus on the topic of the week.

HalcyonX12 said,
Microsoft isn't just competing against Linux and OS X, they're competing against perceptions of their OS. People aren't just deciding they want alternative OSes, they have been around for a while and viable for a while. They are actively rejecting Windows, because of the unusability of such a system. It's not something you can just install and forget about, it needs active attention, and there are less and less people with the know-how willing to focus on maintaining these installations. Microsoft was previously relying on hobbyists to maintain such installations, but hobbyists want to do more than wipe viruses and recover preferences. The power users are moving onto more interesting things and are tired of the same old on Windows. Windows is more of a chore to use daily and to maintain, and that's what MS has to focus on, not beating specs on a netbook. There will always be areas where alternatives are making inroads and it will not serve MS to focus on the topic of the week.

Oh come on...i never had a SINGLE activation problem in my laptop (preinstalled with Vista, later installed SP1 too) & also the desktop (same scenario, whereas desktop, i bought retail vista & installed it)....Earlier in XP stage many where using Pirated copies..so it was a kindof messy one...by vista, its not tat much as far as i seen (in my frnds home & there laptops, at my office environments)....
Windows 7 ARE designed to run on netbook (maybe there will be a windows 7 netbook version, windows 7 home & windows 7 professional & windows 7 ulimate)..And there are THOUSANDS of big companies who run windows & use there infrastructure (like Active directory which is tied to everything in there system (mail, security etc etc)..so windows wont get down easily...it will take a huge time (maybe 20years? ..bcos IT budgets always are about 3-10 yrs (procuring hardwares etc..)...

guruparan said,
Oh come on...i never had a SINGLE activation problem in my laptop (preinstalled with Vista, later installed SP1 too) & also the desktop (same scenario, whereas desktop, i bought retail vista & installed it)....Earlier in XP stage many where using Pirated copies..so it was a kindof messy one...by vista, its not tat much as far as i seen (in my frnds home & there laptops, at my office environments)....
Windows 7 ARE designed to run on netbook (maybe there will be a windows 7 netbook version, windows 7 home & windows 7 professional & windows 7 ulimate)..And there are THOUSANDS of big companies who run windows & use there infrastructure (like Active directory which is tied to everything in there system (mail, security etc etc)..so windows wont get down easily...it will take a huge time (maybe 20years? ..bcos IT budgets always are about 3-10 yrs (procuring hardwares etc..)...

He wasn't talking about activation, he was talking about how the OS requires active attention from the user, instead of serving it's original purpose, which would be the OS just being a basis that actually works out of the box and that can be used for whatever you want to use it for.

Something that people should realize is that, regardless of hardware and hardware requirements, if this is all you're going to do: "They're designed mainly for browsing the Web, handling e-mail, writing memos, and taking care of simple word-processing or spreadsheet chores." then linux is the best operating system. It doesn't even matter how much ram or processing power you have. It would be the case on any computer. The main reason people choose windows over linux is because they want to do more than just those things.

Just like I said. If someone wants to play GTA IV or any newer games, run Photoshop CS4 or whatever, they won't be doing it on a netbook for sure.

Symod said,
Just like I said. If someone wants to play GTA IV or any newer games, run Photoshop CS4 or whatever, they won't be doing it on a netbook for sure.

Exactly. And Windows would likely be the most correct OS for those needs.

Another thing I wanted to mention, totally off topic, anyone else hate the style the article (most articles really) was written. If there were a few more mid-sentence links, every second word in the article would have linked somewhere. Sort of a thing noob blogers do. It's annoying!

Actually, it is nice to include the reference links for someone who wants more information. No one makes you click them. But, if someone wonders about a point made, they can easily follow that to get the background facts on that item.

I'd prefer something along the lines of related news, with articles for users wanting to read more on the subject. Nothing serious, I didn't mean to sound like a jerk or something, just felt there were a bit too many links, that's all.

SimoD said,
I'd prefer something along the lines of related news, with articles for users wanting to read more on the subject. Nothing serious, I didn't mean to sound like a jerk or something, just felt there were a bit too many links, that's all.

I thought that this particular post was really well written and there was some actual effort put into it. What the Neowin news posters need to work on is some of the blatant plagiarism that is passed off as "Neowin original content" that is being posted more and more these days.

Microsoft are in a cleft stick with this one. The tight sales margins on these low cost devices mean there is not much room for the cost of the O/S. With people getting used to Mac's O\S, and the potential to throw in yards of free Linux applications, AND keep the Microsoft cut; makes Linux a very attractive option for both customer and manufacturer. In fact, they could offer both (unless Microsoft pull one of their sneaky tricks)

Obviously Microsoft could throw in all sorts: Works Office 2007 Outlook etc. but this has the potential to damage their other markets? Microsoft are becoming an irrelevance (as they have always feared)

I think with a touch sensitive screen, and 3G / VOIP connection these machines will become a real winner. Go for it Asus!

boho said,
Microsoft are in a cleft stick with this one. The tight sales margins on these low cost devices mean there is not much room for the cost of the O/S. With people getting used to Mac's OS, and the potential to throw in yards of free Linux applications, AND keep the Microsoft cut; makes Linux a very attractive option for both customer and manufacturer. In fact, they could offer both (unless Microsoft pull one of their sneaky tricks)

Obviously Microsoft could throw in all sorts: Works Office 2007 Outlook etc. but this has the potential to damage their other markets? Microsoft are becoming an irrelevance (as they have always feared)

I think with a touch sensitive screen, and 3G / VOIP connection these machines will become a real winner. Go for it Asus!

Some valid points here, but I wouldn't go as far as saying MS is becoming an irrelevance (though for me, with one exception, they basically are), but rather, the competition is becoming even more relevant. They have a greater stake in subtly or not so subtly forcing MS' hand in key areas. But in the fullness of time, we might eventually end up in a situation that you describe.

Yeah it might happen, just as Vista was supposed to run smoothly on notebooks and most retailers recommended XP in the end (some still do), just like Vista was supposed to have a special mode for gaming purposes that would decrease hardware requirements (what happened was the opposite, gamers are still mostly using XP).

I'm not attacking Windows, I use it myself. And I do think it's the overall best operating system to use. But I have been let down by Vista, and XP is just too old. It's a good thing Vista's starting to get on it's feet, I might give it a try (again, the first experience was a bitter-sweet... well mostly bitter one). And I hope 7 actually brings back good Windows as the modern operating system back on the table. The one XP was a few years ago.

Until then, I actually started using Ubuntu as well. For the reasons aforementioned. And I might say I enjoy it a lot.

As for netbooks, all of you are missing one huge point: everything done in Windows netbook can be done on a Linux netbook. Because people don't use professional programs and new games on a netbook - they listen to music, watch movies and browse web. And that is why most people stick to Linux on it. It's just an argument Windows can't win (which it pretty much wins on desktop computers). And it is a threat. But thank god I say, a little competition is the best thing we need, especially if it takes the hardware requirements off 7, unlike the monster Vista was when it came out.

Windows people should actually be the ones most happy about this, we might get a really good OS this time.

SimoD said,
Yeah it might happen, just as Vista was supposed to run smoothly on notebooks and most retailers recommended XP in the end (some still do), just like Vista was supposed to have a special mode for gaming purposes that would decrease hardware requirements (what happened was the opposite, gamers are still mostly using XP).

I'm not attacking Windows, I use it myself. And I do think it's the overall best operating system to use. But I have been let down by Vista, and XP is just too old. It's a good thing Vista's starting to get on it's feet, I might give it a try (again, the first experience was a bitter-sweet... well mostly bitter one). And I hope 7 actually brings back good Windows as the modern operating system back on the table. The one XP was a few years ago.

Until then, I actually started using Ubuntu as well. For the reasons aforementioned. And I might say I enjoy it a lot.

As for netbooks, all of you are missing one huge point: everything done in Windows netbook can be done on a Linux netbook. Because people don't use professional programs and new games on a netbook - they listen to music, watch movies and browse web. And that is why most people stick to Linux on it. It's just an argument Windows can't win (which it pretty much wins on desktop computers). And it is a threat. But thank god I say, a little competition is the best thing we need, especially if it takes the hardware requirements off 7, unlike the monster Vista was when it came out.

Windows people should actually be the ones most happy about this, we might get a really good OS this time.


The reason notebooks (especially older notebooks) and older desktops are often still running XP (as opposed to Vista) has nothing to do with whether the hardware itself can do so in most cases. The culprit is often poorly-developed (or in some cases, utterly non-existent) drivers for legacy or EOL'd peripherals. I have a Gateway DS600 notebook that is still running XP (XP Home), but it has nothing to do with whether the notebook can be configured to run Vista. The notebook's core components can certainly do so (P4 Northwood-B, AMD MR 7500 graphics, external SMC USB wifi-G); however, the cost of upgrading the notebook's paltry RAM loadout (256 MB) and adding an external DVD drive (the notebook comes with but a CD-RW drive) make Vista (even Basic) a non-starter. The situation is nearly as bad for older desktops (especially P4-based desktops designed around Northwood-B or newer processors with integrated graphics); while there are ways in which you can do motherboard/CPU swaps to bring such a system up to the present (mATX motherboards, such as ASRock's 4CORE line and ASUS' P5N-EM/HDMI are great fits in cases from SFF to full-ATX and mostly don't require changing power supplies), and some even let you re-use existing DDR system memory. However, complete-system prices have fallen to the point where such swaps are typically left to those that are comfortable with a screwdriver.

But that doesn't change the fact that Windows has nothing on Linux currently, talking about netbooks of course (seven year old XP vs. fresh new Linux with similar performance, or new Vista vs. Linux, with Linux having better performance). And considering how they failed to keep their promises with Vista, I'm skeptical about this.

Linux has at least half a year head start as being the better netbook OS (I'll leave the general discussion on which OS is better to idiots, for me each serves it's own purpose), and that will affect the market, I'm sure.

And once again I repeat, I see it only as a good thing. If Microsoft actually makes something good this time around, I'm sold.

But the hardware demands of Vista can't be met by Netbooks (and a reason why Microsoft keeps extending XP's lifetime)

Yes netbooks can support vista just fine. Its the idiots that put the crappy Via processor in their netbook and decided to slap vista on there that started the rumor that Netbooks can't handle Vista. I have both Vista and and Win 7 on my MSi Wind.

statm1 said,
Yes netbooks can support vista just fine. Its the idiots that put the crappy Via processor in their netbook and decided to slap vista on there that started the rumor that Netbooks can't handle Vista. I have both Vista and and Win 7 on my MSi Wind.

The trouble is that Vista has not exactly been optimized to run on a small display. It can, but there are a few issues. The memory in most netbooks is at least semi adequate, but the storage is often lacking (

Yes, Windows 7 could just be lean enough to be a linux killer on netbooks. Even if its not, Microsoft could have more tricks up its sleeve.

Be prepared for a free windows for netbooks. "(sic) Microsoft Windows 7 Netbooks Express (sic)" or something worse.

"Less than a Half" would imply using between a Quarter and a Half, otherwise, as Microsoft (and most other companies trying to sell/plug anything, I'd wager) likes to do, they would have made it sound better by saying it used less than a Quarter.
Why say it uses less than a half when saying it uses less than a quarter sounds just that much better?

Edit: Bah! Stoopid 'Reply to this comment' link.

Lechio
I would like to point out something to you, first you quoted Steven Sinofsky saying "it used less than half of the netbook's 1 GB of RAM"
Then you stated that a Linux system uses "less than a quarter of that 1GB of memory".
My question is: "How much ram did Sinofsky's Lenovo actually use ?"
My second question is: "How much ram does Linux actually use?"
Using the statements "Using less than half or Using less than a quarter" really could mean anything !
A quarter is less than half, so Sinofsky's Lenovo may have only used a QUARTER !??

I don't know what Sinofsky said, but in my personal experience of using Linux, it usually uses about 250-300Mb of the 1Gb memory in my desktop.

Caveman-ugh said,
Then you stated that a Linux system uses "less than a quarter of that 1GB of memory".
My question is: "How much ram did Sinofsky's Lenovo actually use ?"
My second question is: "How much ram does Linux actually use?"

Sinofsky has not mentioned how much. "used less than half of the netbook's 1GB of RAM" is nothing that can be measured.
My reply on "How much ram does Linux actually use?" is partially answered above.

Steven Sinofsky, Windows Senior Vice President, showed off Windows 7 on his Lenovo S10 and said it used less than half of the netbook's 1GB of RAM.

A Linux system can run a full desktop with less than a quarter of that 1GB of memory. Real news would be if Microsoft made an OS that could achieve something similar.

But then you have to remember that Linux and Windows aren't exactly the same, take DirectX for example. All I'm saying is Linux caters to a different market, but their common interests do overlap and this is where Linux could gain an upper hand.

Scirwode

True. You can run Linux on less resources. This would probably be because of having an actual command line and useful text mode applications in the ports tree. Yes, Power Shell is not bad... but it is not as well documented as bash, csh, ksh or tcsh. Further Explorer... unlike XFCE and other Windows Managers like (cough... fluxbox) is a resource hog. There are alternative desktops to Windows Explorer, but they have no official support and are often limited... mainly due to a small development groups, small user market and no access to the closed source code of Windows.

So Linux can run on half the disk space (256MB) Microsoft is claiming Windows 7 can (512MB). Who cares? In terms of even small SDD like 20GB, they're both practically the same in that they are sufficiently small. And when given the option to pile whatever features Windows 7 has at 512MB, Linux users will add at least that amount. It is kind of an insignificant comparison, IMO.

Right now my desktop's idling at about 80x MB out of a max of 2 GB used. I'm guessing the OS uses up to half of the available RAM while idling.

The reasons why Vista/7 use more RAM has been debated to death already. So what if (other OS) uses a quarter of a gigabyte?

Lechio said,
A Linux system can run a full desktop with less than a quarter of that 1GB of memory. Real news would be if Microsoft made an OS that could achieve something similar.

My Windows 7 installed on PIII with 512MB RAM uses less than half of it.
Apparently Lechio lives in the cave.

Shadrack said,
So Linux can run on half the disk space (256MB) Microsoft is claiming Windows 7 can (512MB). Who cares? In terms of even small SDD like 20GB, they're both practically the same in that they are sufficiently small. And when given the option to pile whatever features Windows 7 has at 512MB, Linux users will add at least that amount. It is kind of an insignificant comparison, IMO.

Errrrrr.... they are talking about memory, not disk space. :P

RealFduch said,
My Windows 7 installed on PIII with 512MB RAM uses less than half of it.
Apparently Lechiro lives in the cave.

If that's really true then that is awesome. I knew Windows 7 was more optimized and did use more ram provided you have it, but I can't believe it can use less than 256MB of ram.

This would probably be because of having an actual command line and useful text mode applications in the ports tree.

I'm running KDE as my main desktop, it's a fully advanced Desktop Environment with graphical applications. My computer specs are AMD Athlon @ 900MHz with 384MB of RAM. With the desktop, music player, web browser, terminal, instant messenger and a couple of other apps running, my system is using about 267MB. I consider this to be fair and as this system doesn't have much resources, it is very important for me that those available can be correctly managed.

dlegend said,
If that's really true then that is awesome. I knew Windows 7 was more optimized and did use more ram provided you have it, but I can't believe it can use less than 256MB of ram.

I suspect you will have people claiming it runs fine on a 90MHz Pentium with 64MB of RAM.

Yeah, it might be custom-hacked to be shoe-horned into that, and it may actually even run. But not be practical. I would guess you can get Linux in that, too, but still would not be satisfied with the resulting usability of the apps (too sluggish).

But it doesn't stop the reverse e-penising going on. "Look! Mine is smaller!"

RealFduch said,
My Windows 7 installed on PIII with 512MB RAM uses less than half of it.
Apparently Lechiro lives in the cave.

Really? I would like to see that. Please produce evidence of what you have just claimed.

My house looks nothing like a cave. :)
And please RealFduch the name is Lechio not "Lechiro".

Running Win7 6956 on a 8 year old desktop: P4 1.6GHz, 768MB RAM, Geforce FX5500, and 10GB partition. RAM usage at idle is at about 390MB with Aero on. Things are pretty snappy overall.

I think if Microsoft released a consumer version of Server Core with Windows 7 that had a good terminal shell (Power Shell) and a ports tree... of GNU ports (native, outside of Cygwin) this debate would not matter. I just don't see Microsoft releasing this. They recently released enhancements to the WPS to provide the joystick happy Win admins with the option of doing their script code visually on a their Windows workstations.

232 Mb used. PIII 800, 512 RAM, S3 Trio64 v+ (1 Mb vRam)

254 Mb used. PIII 800, 512 RAM, GeForce 2 MX 400 (64 Mb vRam; uninstalled buggy nVidia driver)

Updated: links to full-resolution versions.

bluarash said,
I think if Microsoft released a consumer version of Server Core with Windows 7 that had a good terminal shell (Power Shell) and a ports tree... of GNU ports (native, outside of Cygwin) this debate would not matter. I just don't see Microsoft releasing this.

Bla-bla-bla, Mr. I-know-nothing-but-talk-a-lot-of-BS. Wake up and smell the ashes.
Check...

Mate...


Updated: links to full-resolution versions.

RealFduch said,
Bla-bla-bla, Mr. I-know-nothing-but-talk-a-lot-of-BS. Wake up and smell the ashes. Just don't forget to pull your hands from wherever they are.

Why do you need to resort to personal attacks?

If you have a point to prove, do it, and then move on.

If Windows 7 can do that for the final version, run on such limited hardware, then these can only be good news for Microsoft.
After Vista, one would expect an OS from Microsoft with similar minimal/recommended requirements.

Now, if Windows 7 was free to use, GNU/Linux would be in great trouble...

RealFduch said,
Bla-bla-bla, Mr. I-know-nothing-but-talk-a-lot-of-BS. Wake up and smell the ashes. Just don't forget to pull your hands from wherever they are.
Check...


Mate...

So you show me a poor Unix subsystem implementation with X running and this somehow translate into a Windowless workstation install with a full GNU ports tree. Huh? Why not at least show me a customized Cygwin install with a fully tricked out Gnome install?

This was not what I was asking for. I already have both of these options installed. Neither is very good. Cygwin is not really native (and kind of slow) and SFU is too limited. It does not even come close to the features that FINK has under OSX.

If you look at my post, what I was asking for (along with many admins/developers) is an X less Windows session. You can get this with Server Core on Windows 2008. I just thought it would be nice to have a version for Windows 7. No UI at all, a well developed shell (Power Shell) and a full GNU ports tree.

RealFduch said,
232 Mb used. PIII 800, 512 RAM, S3 Trio64 v+ (1 Mb vRam)


254 Mb used. PIII 800, 512 RAM, GeForce 2 MX 400 (64 Mb vRam; uninstalled buggy nVidia driver)

It sure doesn't use many handles over have many threads open. The processes have been cut down to nothing @29. Now maybe showing us a working desktop with an install of a few custom apps might be in order. At the very least... how about an install of Visual Studio. I would love to see that run in 512mb of memory.

BTW... what website are you hosting the images off from and do you know Russian (i.e. language)?

LTD said,
Why do you need to resort to personal attacks?
If you have a point to prove, do it, and then move on.

As I said here simply proving that the opponent is wrong is no more enough to heal the people's opinion.

bluarash said,
So you show me a poor Unix subsystem implementation with X running and this somehow translate into a Windowless workstation install with a full GNU ports tree. Huh? Why not at least show me a customized Cygwin install with a fully tricked out Gnome install?

This was not what I was asking for. I already have both of these options installed. Neither is very good. Cygwin is not really native (and kind of slow) and SFU is too limited. It does not even come close to the features that FINK has under OSX.

I showed you the running Portage system (Gentoo Linux ports tree). The native potrts system for SUA is pkgsrc, but I liked Portage better (also tried Debian). How come Portage != "full GNU ports tree"? You insult Gentoo users.
Cygwin is buggy and not native. Many programs compile/run under Cygwin only because of patches/hacks. Why would I want it? SFU is old and not too good. SUA is native POSIX subsystem (just like x86 and x64 subsystems) and it's rather good.

bluarash said,
It sure doesn't use many handles over have many threads open. The processes have been cut down to nothing @29. Now maybe showing us a working desktop with an install of a few custom apps might be in order. At the very least... how about an install of Visual Studio. I would love to see that run in 512mb of memory.

BTW... what website are you hosting the images off from and do you know Russian (i.e. language)?

It's a clean Windows 7 start. No processes were killed.

I'm hosting the images on http://fotki.yandex.ru/ . When I add images to my blog posts they are hosted there by default. It's a photo hosting created by the serach company Yandex http://ya.ru , http://yandex.ru , http://www.yandex.com/ (It's search engine is older than google's, but it doesn't handle non-Russian web good right now.)
Yes, I know Russian because I live in Russia =)

BTW I fixed the links to the full-resolution versions of images.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3301/sad-wi...c_45431baf_orig
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/2709/sad-wi...d_8377232d_orig
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3/sad-wind....b_1ed1564f_orig
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/52/sad-wind...0_fcaaa78c_orig

SFU and SUA are pretty much the same. It is the same Interix code. The last I checked, the full Gentoo portage tree was not available and many of them were pretty broken. This might have changed... I could be wrong. I'll have to take another look. At the very least Xming looks pretty cool as an X server. If memory serves, it was always pretty fast.

I'll take your word on Windows 7... I have not tried it yet. I'm not holding out on an official invite... might wait for the public beta or maybe...

As for Portage != not native I was basically talking about a lack of a default option from Microsoft... a UI less OS with a full portage tree on an ISO directly from Technet or Microsoft Connect or MSDN. Of course it should be rather trivial to install Server Core, install SUA and than either Gentoo or Deb ports. You could than easily add WPS so I could access .NET source and editor my registry.

You're right... I know nothing... but talk a lot of BS...

bluarash said,
SFU and SUA are pretty much the same. It is the same Interix code.

They are. But on SFU 3.5 I couldn't even compile Bash.
bluarash said,
The last I checked, the full Gentoo portage tree was not available and many of them were pretty broken. This might have changed... I could be wrong. I'll have to take another look.

Native port tree for Interix is pkgsrc. Interopsystems has a modified version, binary package repository and one-click installer for package packs. But I chose another path. I tried using official FreeBSD's pkgsrc ports but had trouble to bootstrap. Debian-Interix was rather unpolished that time. I thought that I need some source-oriented ports tree so I tried Gentoo (I heard they compile everything). I found Prefix Portage (Gentoo/Alt) which is Portage adapted for non-Linux OSes. For the installation I used prefix-portage-launcher script, text editor and head. I never worked closely with linux, but I managed to fix the bugs that crossed my way. Many *nix programs mishandle fork() errors so I had to patch Bash and Python to retry fork() on EAGAIN. After that the script run rather smoothly. It fetched some bootstrap packages, compiled & installed them, then emerged system, portage etc and upadated itself. When the portage was working I just wrote "emerge xfce" and it installed after some hours of compilation. I have a little overlay to keep my Bash and Python patches.
bluarash said,
At the very least Xming looks pretty cool as an X server. If memory serves, it was always pretty fast.

My first thought after installing xfce and taking that screenshot was: "Ok. It works. Do I really have any need for this?" The answer is still NO. It's still the answer. I update this little toy once in a while though it often breaks (maintainers' fault).
bluarash said,
I'll take your word on Windows 7... I have not tried it yet. I'm not holding out on an official invite... might wait for the public beta or maybe...

I tested lots of MS products including Vista but didn't receive invite. Torrents FTW, though I'd want to report a pair of bugs that I don't like.
bluarash said,
As for Portage != not native I was basically talking about a lack of a default option from Microsoft... a UI less OS with a full portage tree on an ISO directly from Technet or Microsoft Connect or MSDN.

It would be really good. But I think that more important aspect of repositories is the variety of [third-party] applications. And that's impossible for the dominating platform like Windows. Imagine trojan writers releasing their "Super Antivirus 2010" on such system and lure users or cry about evil MS trumping competition. Another thing is... you cannot write "emerge photoshop" on any platform.

BTW. Some bonus pics of 140 MB MinWin Windows 7 in action:
MinWinPC

ПосмоÑ‚реÑ‚ÑŒ на Яндекс.ФоÑ‚каÑ...

214 RAM used. It lways fluctuates.

ПосмоÑ‚реÑ‚ÑŒ на Яндекс.ФоÑ‚каÑ...

Paint it black.

ПосмоÑ‚реÑ‚ÑŒ на Яндекс.ФоÑ‚каÑ...

RealFduch said,
232 Mb used. PIII 800, 512 RAM, S3 Trio64 v+ (1 Mb vRam)
(screenshot)
254 Mb used. PIII 800, 512 RAM, GeForce 2 MX 400 (64 Mb vRam; uninstalled buggy nVidia driver)
(screenshot)
Updated: links to full-resolution versions.

And it runs well on that system? No lockups, freezes, etc?

rm20010 said,


And it runs well on that system? No lockups, freezes, etc?

No lockups and freezes. I's a bit slow but not much slower than XP.
No Aero. (=> no windows thumbnails anywhere)
With S3 Trio64 v+ I couldn't set widescreen resolution.
GeForce 2 MX 400 doesn't have drivers for Vista. Some versions of XP drivers can be installed on 7. Some versions are buggy.

RealFduch said,
It would be really good. But I think that more important aspect of repositories is the variety of [third-party] applications. And that's impossible for the dominating platform like Windows. Imagine trojan writers releasing their "Super Antivirus 2010" on such system and lure users or cry about evil MS trumping competition. Another thing is... you cannot write "emerge photoshop" on any platform.

The goodness of OSS.
Software can be looked at by the people who distribute and use it. If it does something that it is not supposed to do, it stays off the repositories. Really simple and effective don't you think?
That cannot be said or done with closed source applications, one can only wonder what that application does and why is application "XPTO" connecting to the Web??

No you cannot "emerge photoshop" it's not free software. But I guess you find a way to get it from "some torrent" file. There are free applications, but from your previous sayings those wouldn't interest you.

And just imagine what it would be if Windows followed the route of GNU/Linux. Imagine what it would be. Thousands and thousands of free applications all available at a single click for install. And without the user having to worry about if it is a trojan or a virus instead of an application to play video.

Regards, Lechio.

Lechio said,
The goodness of OSS.
Software can be looked at by the people who distribute and use it. If it does something that it is not supposed to do, it stays off the repositories. Really simple and effective don't you think?
That cannot be said or done with closed source applications, one can only wonder what that application does and why is application "XPTO" connecting to the Web??

No you cannot "emerge photoshop" it's not free software. But I guess you find a way to get it from "some torrent" file. There are
free
applications, but from your previous sayings those wouldn't interest you.

And just imagine what it would be if Windows followed the route of GNU/Linux. Imagine what it would be. Thousands and thousands of
free
applications all available at a single click for install. And without the user having to worry about if it is a trojan or a virus instead of an application to play video.

Regards, Lechio.

There are so many applications that they cannot be looked through carefully no matter if the source is open or closed. Hundreds of malware programs emerge every day. They'll 100% find their way into the repositories.

Look at the antivirus writers. Malware writers sue tham for flagging their malware. Successfully.
Look at Sun. They sue MS for including Java. Then sued for excluding Java.
Look at Adobe. They threatened to sue MS for allowing Word to save files in PDF (Adobe format). And then threatened to sue MS for allowing Word to save files in XPS (Microsoft's format).
Crapware makers such as Real sue for not including their crap. EU is happy to collect fines.

They'll face the same problems. I'm 100% sure there would be a lot of cries and antitrust filings if MS creates a global repository.
Another problem is support. Vista gets bashed for bad 3rd-party drivers. Now MS would be bashed for buggy 3rd-party apps that are available in repository.

There are easy to use repositories. Steam and Impulse are not bad. But you don't see them becoming global any time soon.
There are "single click" technologies like ClickOnce deployment. Not many people use it though.

I think that MS cannot follow GNU/Linux way. Big companies don't have enough freedom.

RealFduch, you seem to lack some real understanding of how things work in the Open Source world. Let's take your four recent points in the above post.

RealFduch said,
Look at the antivirus writers. Malware writers sue tham for flagging their malware. Successfully.

Who is going to sue a repo for just plain not including them in their repository? You can't sue to force inclusion in the Ubuntu repos, for example. Lack of understanding.

RealFduch said,
Look at Sun. They sue MS for including Java. Then sued for excluding Java.

Sun sued Microsoft for altering their licensed version of Java to be incompatible with the Java specs, which was a violation of the license agreement. Again, you show a lack of understanding.

RealFduch said,
Look at Adobe. They threatened to sue MS for allowing Word to save files in PDF (Adobe format). And then threatened to sue MS for allowing Word to save files in XPS (Microsoft's format).

Here is where I match you in a lack of understanding. I haven't cared about this, as it doesn't affect me on Linux. However, the difference between you and I here, is that I don't spout this out as a claim of support to pretend I know what I am talking about.

RealFduch said,
Crapware makers such as Real sue for not including their crap. EU is happy to collect fines.

Again, this is the same type of situation as your first point. If Fedora doesn't include a Real Player in their repos, who are they going to sue, and on what grounds? No one, and no legal grounds.

markjensen said,
RealFduch, you seem to lack some real understanding of how things work in the Open Source world.

"Windows+repository" is more close to "Microsoft world" than to "Open Souce world". So Open Source world "laws" generally don't apply.
markjensen said,
Who is going to sue a repo for just plain not including them in their repository? You can't sue to force inclusion in the Ubuntu repos, for example.

Not including to the [main/default] repo is anticompetitive behavior. Linux gets away with it only because nobody cares. Did Eolas sue Konqueror creators fro embedded applets. No. Was Fedora sued for mp3, png, jpg support? No.
markjensen said,
Sun sued Microsoft for altering their licensed version of Java to be incompatible with the Java specs, which was a violation of the license agreement. Again, you show a lack of understanding.

MS created the fastest Java VM. It was created for IE3 to be able to run Java applets. Talk about incompatibility... The problem with JVM was that it couldn't play well with non-Java programs/libraries. So Microsoft created Raw Native Interface to bridge Java and non-Java code. Sun sued MS and created their own Java Native Interface which is basically the same thing.
markjensen said,
Here is where I match you in a lack of understanding. I haven't cared about this, as it doesn't affect me on Linux.

It's fun how you don't care about freedom. As fun as looking at linux users under Bush claiming to be free.
markjensen said,
Again, this is the same type of situation as your first point. If Fedora doesn't include a Real Player in their repos, who are they going to sue, and on what grounds? No one, and no legal grounds.

Why is MS not allowed to do something that others are? Because it's a monopoly! Did EU sue Apple to remove iTunes from Mac OS X? No. But they sued MS to remove Windows Media Player. Etc.
As for PDF: either Adobe was able to sue because MS is monopoly or just because it's big. I suspect the latter. Was Fedora sued for mp3, png, jpg support? No.
As I said big companies don't have that much freedom.

RealFduch said,
...
Not including to the [main/default] repo is anticompetitive behavior.
...

That, and your other similar statements just reinforce the fact that you don't understand it.

It is not anticompetitive for a repo to exclude malware in their repos. And this is the exact point you made in your earlier statement.

You are living in Bizarro world if you are continuing to spout that nonsense.

Let's make it official. I call your bluff. Show me what law it transgresses. How is it anticompetetive for a repo maintainer to not include malware. Or any other app that he/she/they choose?

Maybe RealFduch is hurt by the way Windows, WMP and IE get hit by malware and would like to see that happening in the Linux repos too.

No, you cannot force something that has malware in it to be in the repos. No law would allow it, on the contrary, you can sue the company that tries to pass something like that and tries to include it in the repos. Well... maybe not in Russia...

markjensen said,
RealFduch said,
...
Not including to the [main/default] repo is anticompetitive behavior.
...

That, and your other similar statements just reinforce the fact that you don't understand it.

It is not anticompetitive for a repo to exclude malware in their repos. And this is the exact point you made in your earlier statement.

You are living in Bizarro world if you are continuing to spout that nonsense.

Let's make it official. I call your bluff. Show me what law it transgresses. How is it anticompetetive for a repo maintainer to not include malware. Or any other app that he/she/they choose?

I see that you keep ignoring Microsoft's size as to why they can't exclude software from a repository because you'll no longer have an argument. Microsoft commands more than 90% of the entire Personal Computer market on this entire Earth therefore they have to move more cautiously when they create their OS' to avoid closing out the competition. If Microsoft was to create a repository any programs included in it will appear to be endorsed by Microsoft. Now if I make a program and it's not listed in the repository but my competitor's is then it looks like Microsoft is conspiring with said company to push me out the market. In addition, what if my app isn't included in the repository but Microsoft's Version is? LAWSUIT! You see, when you're as big as Microsoft you have to tread carefully because you will have the ability to destroy entire companies by doing something as little as bundling a specific software standard with your OS. A Repository is just another lawsuit waiting to happen that Microsoft doesn't need.

^ So in your words, Microsoft including a media player, a web browser a mail reader application, (...) in their OS and tweaking their products to work better with the OS they built is "closing out the competition"?
Cause... That's what happens now.

Making a repository available for others is a worst alternative?

MarenLBC said,
I see that you keep ignoring Microsoft's size as to why they can't exclude software from a repository because you'll no longer have an argument. ... If Microsoft was to create a repository ... A Repository is just another lawsuit waiting to happen that Microsoft doesn't need.

I was talking about repos in Linux. These things are real and exist, you know, so we can talk facts about those. A Microsoft repository holding third-party apps is purely theoretical, so we can only discuss possibilites. It might be subject if they closed the system out so no one else could set up MS repos. However, if they set up a MS repo, and allowed others to set up repos that users could create (like a Neowin repo, or a Sourceforge repo) then Microsoft could put what they like in theirs, and let communties build their own.

The point I was discussing was that a Linux malware writer cannot sue to make someone like Ubuntu or Fedora include their malicious app.

The Microsoft theoretical discussion is interesting, though. I suppose if they kept a monopoly on the repos, so only the official MS repo could be used, then yes, they would subject themselves to legal action - due to their own policies. If they allowed groups to freely set up their own repos, and users to select the repos of their choice, I don't see how anyone could have grounds to sue Microsoft to include their app (malicious or not) into the MS repos. I could see people paying Microsoft to include their apps, though. And these "sponsored" apps sound like crappy promotional deals to me. Picked on how they line Microsoft's pockebooks, rather than their merits.

I wasn't ignoring Microsoft's size. It really is not relevant. Microsoft's actions are what would make their actions illegal or not.

markjensen said,
I wasn't ignoring Microsoft's size. It really is not relevant. Microsoft's actions are what would make their actions illegal or not.

You did just that. Apple and Fedora cannot be sued for bundling media players with OS. MS was sued.

You cannot use the "Linux distros aren't sued for smth." agrument because as I mentioned (you have ignored that) companies don't like suing Linux distros creators (Eolas, png, jpg, mp3 lawsuits). Disclaimer: "don't like to sue" != "never sue"

You have also ignored all my words about support. When some ebuild deletes you whole / you cry on forums. When some app from MS repo does that you sue MS for damages.

RealFduch said,
You did just that. Apple and Fedora cannot be sued for bundling media players with OS. MS was sued.

You cannot use the "Linux distros aren't sued for smth." agrument because as I mentioned (you have ignored that) companies don't like suing Linux distros creators (Eolas, png, jpg, mp3 lawsuits). Disclaimer: "don't like to sue" != "never sue"

You have also ignored all my words about support. When some ebuild deletes you whole / you cry on forums. When some app from MS repo does that you sue MS for damages.


Or you contact Novell or Red Hat or Oracle for support, if you pay them for support, like you paid Microsoft.

And Linux isn't sued for bundling an app not because Red Hat is small. But because Red Hat supplies you none/some/all media players you want. You can install none. And none of these "bundling" of media players and such are to create lock-in to the vendor. You can get your mplayer for any distro. Or not install it ever.

You just don't see that it is different, do you?

RealFduch said,
You have also ignored all my words about support. When some ebuild deletes you whole / you cry on forums.

Never seen such thing happen in all of my years using Linux...

markjensen said,
And Linux isn't sued
You just don't see that it is different, do you?


At least I see all sentences in a post, not just one. I can also read each of the sentences and understand them. Then I write the answer.
What's so difficult?

You don't read my posts. You don't read the sentences.
I'll wait till you stop imagining things and actually read them.

RealFduch said,
At least I see all sentences in a post, not just one. I can also read each of the sentences and understand them. Then I write the answer.
What's so difficult?

You don't read my posts. You don't read the sentences.
I'll wait till you stop imagining things and actually read them.


To save reply space, I just quote the relevant sections. But I will play your game, and use your previous post.

RealFduch said,
You did just that. Apple and Fedora cannot be sued for bundling media players with OS. MS was sued.

You cannot use the "Linux distros aren't sued for smth." agrument because as I mentioned (you have ignored that) companies don't like suing Linux distros creators (Eolas, png, jpg, mp3 lawsuits). Disclaimer: "don't like to sue" != "never sue"

You have also ignored all my words about support. When some ebuild deletes you whole / you cry on forums. When some app from MS repo does that you sue MS for damages.

Your first point: Apple can be sued. And has, over iTunes. Fedora can be sued. I don't think they have. What was your point on this, other than you can be incorrect.

Your second point: Companies don't like suing Linux distros or creators? SCO? Any one else can sue if they have a case. Red Hat (and Fedora) are pretty active in this area, and remove MP3 and such from what they distribute. You see, they avoid potential infringements. Unisys pressured organizations that wrote software that utilized the GIF format for license royalties. Early versions of GIMP removed GIF capability from their releases (users had to add this themselves). And companies don't like to sue end users is what it comes to. Again, you state incorrectly and wonder why I find your post not particularly relevant? No surprise here.

And your third paragraph's point: So I ignored "all your words on support". Let's see what lengthy and thoughtful analysis of support you posted:

Another problem is support. Vista gets bashed for bad 3rd-party drivers. Now MS would be bashed for buggy 3rd-party apps that are available in repository.
That's it. That's "all your words" on Microsoft's support in this whole entire page of news posts.

Your first sentence says support is a problem. Ok, you have stated what you are going to talk about, but there is nothing to reply to here, is there? Your second sentence says "Vista gets bashed for bad 3rd-party drivers.". Pretty factual. I don't disagree with that. And, as a Linux user, I see this all the time, too, as "stupid Linux doesn't support my xxxx hardware". You see, Vista isn't in any unique position, is it? And your third statement was just an extension of that in that "MS would be bashed for buggy 3rd-party apps that are available in repository.". Again, that is same as now, except location. And same as Linux.

You haven't provided anything to discuss. You could have posted:
Another problem is the sky. The sky is where rain sometimes falls from. And, if people thought there were more storms, more would complain about it.

and I would really have no comment to add to it, either. Nothing to discuss. Just a neutral statement, followed by a fact that applies to Microsoft and Linux. Followed by a reasonable opinion that if drivers were in repos, Microsoft (and Linux, I might add) will still get blamed for bad drivers.

Do you really want me to quote every sentence you right and say "agree" or "this is factual" or "this statement has no content to discuss" for each one?

markjensen said,
I was talking about repos in Linux. These things are real and exist, you know, so we can talk facts about those. A Microsoft repository holding third-party apps is purely theoretical, so we can only discuss possibilites. It might be subject if they closed the system out so no one else could set up MS repos. However, if they set up a MS repo, and allowed others to set up repos that users could create (like a Neowin repo, or a Sourceforge repo) then Microsoft could put what they like in theirs, and let communties build their own.

The point I was discussing was that a Linux malware writer cannot sue to make someone like Ubuntu or Fedora include their malicious app.

The Microsoft theoretical discussion is interesting, though. I suppose if they kept a monopoly on the repos, so only the official MS repo could be used, then yes, they would subject themselves to legal action - due to their own policies. If they allowed groups to freely set up their own repos, and users to select the repos of their choice, I don't see how anyone could have grounds to sue Microsoft to include their app (malicious or not) into the MS repos. I could see people paying Microsoft to include their apps, though. And these "sponsored" apps sound like crappy promotional deals to me. Picked on how they line Microsoft's pockebooks, rather than their merits.

I wasn't ignoring Microsoft's size. It really is not relevant. Microsoft's actions are what would make their actions illegal or not.

Allowing 3rd Parties to create repositories is just not realistic in a Windows Environment without tremendous oversight coming from Microsoft in order to prevent Malware. But with all the software that comes out on the Windows Platform and with all the Developers that would like to make Repositories monitoring them would be expensive and not beneficial to Microsoft. This is why if the idea was ever to see the light of day there would have to be one Repository that Microsoft Operated so that they can make sure that quality was always assured. We have already discussed the problems with this solution though which is why the whole idea doesn't really belong on the platform outside of Windows Update. Microsoft already has a ton of issues with security as it is just imagine how bad it would become if they were to implement this system?

MarenLBC said,
Allowing 3rd Parties to create repositories is just not realistic in a Windows Environment without tremendous oversight coming from Microsoft in order to prevent Malware. But with all the software that comes out on the Windows Platform and with all the Developers that would like to make Repositories monitoring them would be expensive and not beneficial to Microsoft. This is why if the idea was ever to see the light of day there would have to be one Repository that Microsoft Operated so that they can make sure that quality was always assured. We have already discussed the problems with this solution though which is why the whole idea doesn't really belong on the platform outside of Windows Update. Microsoft already has a ton of issues with security as it is just imagine how bad it would become if they were to implement this system?

Interesting. Do you think that if Ubuntu (for example) became hugely popular that a similar situation would exist for them? That is, the software repos would be too large and expensive to manage? Or does the volunteer (slave) labor reduce the management costs? And could Microsoft likewise recruit trusted community volunteers for a trusted 2nd-party repo perhaps?

Now I get why Microsoft extended windows xp for OEM use until the end of June 2009. As guess what is coming out after that time Windows 7 of course !!
Well at least now I know the pundants who said that windows 7 would RTM in April and be publicly released in June / July were right on the money.
Congrats to Winsupersite !!
And when windows 7 comes out we will what does[u]happen with Linux won't we.[/u]

Yes, it will climb to about 2% and XP users will continue to whine when they realize that while Windows 7 is more user and resource friendly... at its core, it still is Vista.

bluarash said,
Yes, it will climb to about 2% and XP users will continue to whine when they realize that while Windows 7 is more user and resource friendly... at its core, it still is Vista.

Weren't all the complaints about how much resources Vista takes? Vista SP2 is solid, but I guess you just read other people's comments than trying yourself. It had the drivers problem in the start because of the new kernel, Windows 7 is not gonna. Windows 7 is fixing any minor bug of Vista.

And all comes with less resources... so nobody cares who the core is as long as it kills the competition.

Glendi said,
Weren't all the complaints about how much resources Vista takes? Vista SP2 is solid, but I guess you just read other people's comments than trying yourself. It had the drivers problem in the start because of the new kernel, Windows 7 is not gonna. Windows 7 is fixing any minor bug of Vista.

And all comes with less resources... so nobody cares who the core is as long as it kills the competition.

Well MS will always (at least in our lifetime) have the biggest market share, which incidentally, has slipped to below 90% recently. I hate to break it to you, though, but the competition won't be "killed." It's already entrenched. And in the vanguard of this entrenchment are OSes that are based on Linux/Unix code. They can't be dislodged at this point. The time for that opportunity has long since passed. The only hope is, is that the one big player in the game can manage to stabilize and prevent any more market loss. So much as a single percentage point lost by MS will probably mean nothing more than questions by stakeholders (which is itself a pain), but it can mean a galaxy to the competition, including greater exposure and demand, which leads to even more development.

Look at the gaming market. With some notable exceptions, it's gradually moving off PCs and onto consoles and handhelds. We might see a situation in due course in which fewer gamers will look to Windows and PCs in order to build custom gaming rigs. It might not be worth it. So these are just some things to consider in this rapidly changing tech landscape.

Glendi, WTF? I mean seriously... I run Windows Vista like most people here. It may have a solid foundation, but it has an increase in system requirements over XP... which ran on systems with 64mb... it ran well on systems with 256mb. XP will run better on their hardware. Period. They likely won't be candidates for an upgrade... to their netbook or desktop. The option for a select group of individuals will simply be to switch to something like Linux for existing hardware or make the move to an Apple with a new purchases.

bluarash said,
Glendi, WTF? I mean seriously... I run Windows Vista like most people here. It may have a solid foundation, but it has an increase in system requirements over XP... which ran on systems with 64mb... it ran well on systems with 256mb. XP will run better on their hardware. Period. They likely won't be candidates for an upgrade... to their netbook or desktop. The option for a select group of individuals will simply be to switch to something like Linux for existing hardware or make the move to an Apple with a new purchases.

i really like XP. indeed i'm using it right now. don't get tricked into revisionist history though. to say XP could be "run" on 64mb RAM is interesting to say the least. officially the box says it will but...well...no.

to say it ran "well" on 256 is still a tad optimistic. it maybe ran well the first few days after a fresh install on 256 but a few weeks in and it would dribble along. for the average joe who has no interest in making sure his services and programs are all optimised and don't start at boot etc, 256 won't cut it for long. for anyone even remotely resembling a "power" user they'll not be able to do jack before the hard disk gets called upon to step in and we all know how poor that is.

you needed at least 512 and preferably more for a decent experience. a long way from 64 or 256.

I never said it ran well on 64mb... it does run, however. I have a system that is used for very little than does run XP on 64mb. It is little more than a paperweight and (print, file server) but it does the job. XP can be managed well in 256mb if a number of lesser services are disabled (today). Back when it was first released, circa 2001... it run well on a base P4 system with a Radeon 9700 Pro and 256mb of memory. Not much as changed in the core system since Sp2. The applications that are used on a daily basis, however, have gotten bigger. Therefore, today... yes I would agree that you need between 512mb and 1gig to run XP well (if not more for development and VM).

Glendi said,
And all comes with less resources... so nobody cares who the core is as long as it kills the competition.

There is no competition to kill. The Mac market will always rise and dip by a few %, as will Linux, but never enough to threaten WIndows. Effectively Windows is up against itself. This is where Microsoft has to watch for complacency.

kizzaaa said,
Most of the websites out there are based on Linux.

Know a lot of people running a webserver off their netbook? Or their desktop, for that matter?

Yeah, didn't think so.

39 Thieves said,
Know a lot of people running a webserver off their netbook? Or their desktop, for that matter?

Yeah, didn't think so.

I do know a lot of people who run their webserver on an actual server, where Linux is becoming increasingly dominant.

The Tjalian said,

I do know a lot of people who run their webserver on an actual server, where Linux is becoming increasingly dominant.

On their netbook o.O??? You use a netbook for hosting your site?

39 Thieves said,
Know a lot of people running a webserver off their netbook? Or their desktop, for that matter?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Mr. Dee said he thinks it's a crappy OS made for people who don't have a life. There was nothing wrong with kizzaaa's response. What's the point of your question?

Also I have my own site running off of a Linux-based server (provided by DreamHost.com). The hosting company hosts over 500,000 websites, all running on Linux.

Also I run linux on my laptop with a web server and connect to it from my desktop for learning purposes. A person that says Linux is a "crappy OS" is extremely ignorant.

PS. I run Vista primarily on my desktop.

It's interesting.

People have been discounting Linux for years now, saying exactly the same thing: "it doesn't have a chance", etc.

Yet it persists, and has even come installed on certain name-brand PCs. Linux is a survivor. The code finds its way into all sorts of tech infrastructures - it's wonderfully insidious. The Unix/Linux environment has the benefit of around 30 years of testing. And is the last word when it comes to customizability. Nothing comes close to it in this regard.

For example, you can have a full bells/whistles distro like Ubuntu with all the eye candy, or a distro like Damn Small Linux, that runs light enough to power a 486DX with 16MB of RAM, or run fully in RAM with as little as 128MB, and still have internet and e-mail functionality, and more.

http://damnsmalllinux.org/

Linux might not have as much sex-appeal as the major consumer OSes (although some Ubuntu users with full compiz effects might beg to differ), but the the code and environment itself is just too well-tested and too hardy to fade away. And netbooks present yet another opportunity for this amazing persistence to show itself.

An OS is much more than DirectX and games.

dlegend said,

Mr. Dee said he thinks it's a crappy OS made for people who don't have a life. There was nothing wrong with kizzaaa's response. What's the point of your question?

Also I have my own site running off of a Linux-based server (provided by DreamHost.com). The hosting company hosts over 500,000 websites, all running on Linux.

Also I run linux on my laptop with a web server and connect to it from my desktop for learning purposes. A person that says Linux is a "crappy OS" is extremely ignorant.

PS. I run Vista primarily on my desktop.

My question was posed because this is a discussion about LINUX ON THE DESKTOP, IN SPECIFIC, ON A NETBOOK.

How exactly it (again) was morphed into how neato-keen linux is for servers is beyond me, other than it's essentially concession of defeat in reference to the topic at hand.

Anyone wanting to run a decent *nix for home use needs go no further than their nearest Apple store.

*cue all the Linux fans to chime in with their 'Works for me!' diatribes. Yeah yeah, I know, I was one of you. I get it, and I was running Slackware over a decade ago as my primary OS. Linux wasn't then, isn't now, and won't be in the foreseeable future, ready for prime-time consumption on the desktop.

LTD said,
An OS is much more than DirectX and games.

linux won't move on to the next level until it works better with games. that'll be down to the game manufacturers too but it needs to come along and soon.

39 Thieves said,
My question was posed because this is a discussion about LINUX ON THE DESKTOP, IN SPECIFIC, ON A NETBOOK.


Funny, you seem to have completely misread Mr. Dee's post. What's even funnier is that you decided to EMPHASIZE an absolutely MOOT point. Epic fail on an epic scale. Read properly.

How exactly it (again) was morphed into how neato-keen linux is for servers is beyond me


Well, that comes as no surprise. Refer to my previous two-word remark.

.. other than it's essentially concession of defeat in reference to the topic at hand.


Communication failure.

Anyone wanting to run a decent *nix for home use needs go no further than their nearest Apple store.


Please don't assume to know what others want.

*cue all the Linux fans to chime in with their 'Works for me!' diatribes.


Another failure.

Yeah yeah, I know, I was one of you.


Cut the crap already.

I get it, and I was running Slackware over a decade ago as my primary OS.


Interesting. And I suppose your arguments for using Slackware included it's user-friendliness, and it's potential to dominate the giants at Silicon Valley. Oh wait, that's probably not so.

Linux wasn't then, isn't now, and won't be in the foreseeable future, ready for prime-time consumption on the desktop.


And I suppose that was relevant to the "topic at hand."

ootput said,

Funny, you seem to have completely misread Mr. Dee's post. What's even funnier is that you decided to EMPHASIZE an absolutely MOOT point. Epic fail on an epic scale. Read properly.

Well, that comes as no surprise. Refer to my previous two-word remark.

Communication failure.

Please don't assume to know what others want.

Another failure.

Cut the crap already.

Interesting. And I suppose your arguments for using Slackware included it's user-friendliness, and it's potential to dominate the giants at Silicon Valley. Oh wait, that's probably not so.

And I suppose that was relevant to the "topic at hand."

How stupid and pedantic does someone have to be to purposefully twist differentiation between laptop/home desktop use and server use for linux? Either that, or are you just too dense to grasp the flow of the thread? As for knowing what others want...pretty hard to misinterpret it when people won't even take something your giving away for free. The market has spoken; Linux at use on anything other than a server is a failure.

.:Mods, please don't delete this, or warn me otherwise. Somewhere along the thread, a troll stepped in, and sought to disrupt the meaningful discussion on the merits of Linux. I'm only trying to elucidate the facts presented in this thread:.

I proceed:

39 Thieves said,
How stupid and pedantic does someone have to be to purposefully twist differentiation between laptop/home desktop use and server use for linux?

An ironic choice of words. I believe you're the one delving into the particulars of Mr Dee's highly generalised Linux rebuke. No matter how hard you try, you simply cannot add words to another's post to forge it's intent. That would be a very stupid thing to do.

.. are you just too dense to grasp the flow of the thread?

Again with the irony. I really hate quoting substantial portions of a thread, but it seems I have to make an exception in this case. (Neowin lacks picture-drawing capabilities.)

Allow me to reiterate:

Thus spake Mr. Dee:

Linux doesn't have chance, I think its crappy OS made for persons who don't have a life.

To which kizzaaa replied:
Most of the websites out there are based on Linux.

Under false pretenses, you wandered into the argument with:
Know a lot of people running a webserver off their netbook? Or their desktop, for that matter?
Yeah, didn't think so.

As dlegend so eloquently put:
Mr. Dee said he thinks it's a crappy OS made for people who don't have a life. There was nothing wrong with kizzaaa's response. What's the point of your question?

.. which should have put you in your spot. He then goes on to explain the benefits of Linux (which Mr. Dee so humbly criticized) on the server platform. And yet you persisted with your argument, claiming that Mr. Dee had negligently omitted several key words that he had planned on adding - that would have otherwise supported your argument.

Unknowingly, you proclaimed that:

As for knowing what others want...pretty hard to misinterpret

The final irony. You seem to have misinterpreted Mr. Dee rather easily.

Would you care to share more? Or would you rather end this trolling (for that is what this is, and it's the only reason why I'm bringing myself down to your level) before shooting yourself somewhere else.

edit: I'm done with this thread. May it live on forever.

ootput said,
.:Mods, please don't delete this, or warn me otherwise. Somewhere along the thread, a troll stepped in, and sought to disrupt the meaningful discussion on the merits of Linux. I'm only trying to elucidate the facts presented in this thread:.

large chunk of pretentious blathering snipped

edit: I'm done with this thread. May it live on forever.

Again, I fail to see what any of this has to do with Linux on a Netbook, which is the sole topic of this thread. Not on servers. Linux, for home use. Get it?

You've never stated a point, counterargument, or in any way rebutted what I've said. You've merely gone on saying that I've misinterpreted the statement of a troll...which is just...dumb.

Reality must be weird down there in mommy's basement.

So. Return rates are higher for the Linux versions, rather than the Windows. 2 things on that. #1, you might want to check out the other companies that make these, before you try to assert that as fact. All you showed was that 1 manufacturer ran into that. And #2, even if it is with all of them, it is to be expected. But you left off the telling part of why it all scares Microsoft to begin with. How many people that never used Linux before DIDN'T return the netbook with Linux running on it? As long as they can keep up the appearance that they are the only real OS, and the others are just for experts or geeks, they feel their market share is safe. This, is bringing Linux to the masses, and it strikes fear into their wallet.

Yes, it was just MSI that reported high Linux returns. Asus and others have said they have not seen this disparity. And, if you look at MSI's offering, you will see that they had a lot of wifi connectivity issues with their Linux config - likely a bad and untested configuration. Regardless of the OS installed, if it dropped connections, I would return it.

As for Windows killing Linux, if they could have, they already would have. Linux is still at less than 1% marketshare in the desktop world (much higher in servers, but let's focus on clients here), according to the surveys and analyses I have seen. Just a sliver in the paw of the Microsoft lion. Apple is a more serious contender for the average home user, I would surmise, but Apple is somewhat hindered by their higher price tag for entry level PCs.

markjensen said,
Asus and others have said they have not seen this disparity.

This really surprises me, because the customized-Xandros install that comes on the eee line is complete garbage, as far as Linux distros go.

shakey_snake said,
This really surprises me, because the customized-Xandros install that comes on the eee line is complete garbage, as far as Linux distros go.

So true, not even the possibility of using iptables (without recompiling the kernel), extremely limited and outdated repositories, and i seriously hated the interface.

The first thing I did with my eeepc was remove Xandros and put another distro on it.

I've not seen the Eee version of Xandros. But I imagine if it performs as advertised (and doesn't drop connections all the time) that people will be relatively happy that it does what it is supposed to, as they update their facebook, check email, and exchange a few documents with friends and co-workers.

I think that changing iptables rules tops most user's lists. But for those who do want that sort of stuff, there are other distros (or even XP).

What about the gPC experiement in Wal Mart. Wally World said that line had return rate upwards of 60%.

Btw, it's not because of evil MS or lazy users either. I bought the Eee701 when it came out and after giving the stock Xandros a go for a week I just couldn't take it even in advanced mode. The whole early EEE user community actually gelled together because of how to get XP onto it.

Sure the FOSS Bolsheviks will say otherwise and blame the user but that obviously isn't a big selling point either.

Who said anything about the user or "evil MS"? :ermm:

Unfortunately, in a 'desktop' market, like the gPC was, you are up against conceptions of what a 'desktop' is, and people who may have bought the gPC as a gift for others or even themselves may have tried to install their copy of MSOffice or other Windows app on it. After all, the gPC is a 'desktop', right? In this market, you are up against the existing legacy software.

"FOSS Bolsheviks". Way to polarize a discussion on a non-logical/highly-emotional level and avoid discussing the facts in favor of casting aspersions...

weedmonk said,
What about the gPC experiement in Wal Mart. Wally World said that line had return rate upwards of 60%.

Btw, it's not because of evil MS or lazy users either. I bought the Eee701 when it came out and after giving the stock Xandros a go for a week I just couldn't take it even in advanced mode. The whole early EEE user community actually gelled together because of how to get XP onto it.

Sure the FOSS Bolsheviks will say otherwise and blame the user but that obviously isn't a big selling point either.

It's rather silly to politicize the discussion.

markjensen said,
Who said anything about the user or "evil MS"? :ermm:

Unfortunately, in a 'desktop' market, like the gPC was, you are up against conceptions of what a 'desktop' is, and people who may have bought the gPC as a gift for others or even themselves may have tried to install their copy of MSOffice or other Windows app on it. After all, the gPC is a 'desktop', right? In this market, you are up against the existing legacy software.

"FOSS Bolsheviks". Way to polarize a discussion on a non-logical/highly-emotional level and avoid discussing the facts in favor of casting aspersions...

I bought one of the gPC's last year for Christmas that was going to be a gift. I got one of the ones that had Vista Home Basic. Vista way way more than that computer could handle. Blew it off and tried to install that gOS distro that came on the other model of the Everex systems Walmart was selling. Couldn't get it installed for nothing.

Put XP Pro and Zenwalk Linux on it for a while. It ran very well then.

Got tired of the Linux thing, so wiped it out and installed XP Pro by itself. It's now the kids computer.

Linux is not going away though and even I know several people the run Linux servers.