Even before I write this post, I know I’m going to get some real nasty comments. Bring it on, tough guys.
The freedom which FOSS gives us, enables everyone with a specific goal in their mind to create their own Linux distro. Most of the time, the goals/philosophy are cool and interesting, but it often happens that the “product” of the project, the one that should take you to the creator’s goal, turns out to be less than nothing. And we have quite a few examples of this in the Linux world. Let’s take a look at our Hall of Fail.
3.) gOS
I’m starting with gOS on the bottom, because I think it wasn’t half bad in the beginning. Most of the coverage came due to the low price of the gPC, the supposedly “tight” integration with web services (if you can call a basic installation of Google Gears and shortcuts to websites “tight”), badly copying OS X (along with the stupid dock).I checked out the last version of gOS, and again it s a meaningless pile of installed packages already available for every other major Linux distro out there. It’s slow, the boot-up screen is ugly, the wbar dock is too basic (the version with AWN is too demanding for low-end PCs, their main target), the window buttons are too small and indistinguishable… and I still don’t know why all the Web 2.0 guys are so excited about a few Google Gadgets and some Facebook and other social network icons which simply open a browser window ( so instead of clicking Firefox and Facebook, you click Facebook and get a retarded browser window. I don’t see any Gears there).
I was first excited about gOS. It promised to offer a real ‘cloud’ operating system, but what they have now is a weird greenbuntu which still needs OpenOffice to do some real work. Now I think their main goal is just to copy the Mac as well as possible.
gOS devs: take another look at your goals and separate the bling from the functionality!
I reviewed this distro a while ago and I though it’s cool that someone is aiming to create a distro in the spirit of BeOS. Looks like the developers didn’t hear the last part. It said ‘philosophy’ not ‘theme’. When I booted into zevenOS I got a very ugly net-book interface (why? It didn’t say that it was for net-books), although they have IceWM. The desktop background is very bad, so is the choice of software. Yeah, the version I tried was a late beta, but betas are finished products which need to remove bugs, not stuff that pops up German menus when you choose the English language. Anyways, now I know why Mark Shuttleworth doesn’t want the name Ubuntu to be associated with low-quality products.
ZeBuntu devs: Your goal is awesome, but you will have to work very, very hard!
1.) Linux XP
“As of September 24th 2008, their web site does not have a way to obtain a serial number to register the OS, and they do not respond to emails sent to them. It is not known if the distribution is dead, or Linux XP is only being registered in Russia.”
I’m still wondering whether this distro is violating the GPL. For Pete’s sake they have a 30-day TRIAL. Linux XP is a Fedora re-spin with a Vista skin, Wine and some other front-ends. It is being sold, you can also obtain a serial number.
Check out this ‘feature list’ from the site. Are they trying to sell Fedora here?!
- The most user-friendly interface ever made for Linux
- Simple and clear installation and Windows-style setup tools
- Full set of applications for work in the Internet.
- Support of Microsoft Office document formats (WORD, EXCEL and others)
- Useful tools for working with Windows networks and VPN
- Full control of your computer, data and applications
- Stable, dependable and without any reinstallation
- Absolutely virus-free environment
- Free updates through a simple but useful interface (no RPM knowledge is required)
Linux XP devs: seriously, wtfiddlesticks
Do you know any distros whose developers sadly didn’t fulfill the promised goals? Share your thoughts in the comments.
“Remember, as the Softies themselves like to remind us, everything about Windows is fluid up until the time the product ships. (And that is one of the main reasons the Windows client team has decided not to talk publicly about Windows 7 — so that no one will be able to prove that they cut planned features from the product.)”
How many features will they cut? Will this version of Windows be more than just a security update with touch-screen support? Where is the innovation?
I just got a tech update from ZDNet with a screenshot for the new Windows 7 (Milestone 3, I believe). So here’s the screenshot:
And here’s the first screenshot of gedit I found and on Ubuntu, which is one of the ugliest distros. It’s not really new.
Wow, Microsoft. Congrats. Shipping in 2009 you say? At this rate gedit will probably have a time travel function by then -_-
Due to the large number of different types of GNU/Linux, there is a multitude of interesting propaganda images, made either by the community or by professionals. What is interesting, most of them are made by someone from the community, and it’s very simple, but hilarious. I enjoy good humor and I enjoy Linux.
Here is a collection of some of my favourite GNU/Linux pics.
The ultimate winner:
http://ralree.com/images/MacPCLinuxTruth.jpg
http://blog.omega-research.org/uploads/2007/09/ubuntu-linux-very-friendly-circle-of-friends.jpg
One of my creations
http://media.brajeshwar.com/i/technology/linux.jpg
http://www.commodore.ca/misc/jokes/Linux-vs-Microsoft.jpg
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/03/HP_Media_Vault_Review_1.jpg
I’ve been rambling on and on about the productivity and/or visual boost which one can get from Compiz Fusion, the Live-CD function that enables you to try out Linux before installing it, etc. etc. etc.!
But what about you?
Many Linux users know why they use Linux, everyone has a reason they chose the Linux Desktop. Some of the qualities of Linux are speed (because of good, open code) and most importantly, choice.
I like the fact that you can work even if you don’t have a graphical desktop, I like being able to launch everything by typing very short commands (which is way faster than point-n-click). I like that you can re-spin the whole system and make your own flavor of GNU/Linux. Software freedom is also extremely important and Linux has probably developed faster, but I cannot say that Linux being Free Software was my main reason for using it. Let’s not forget, there is a multitude of other operating systems out there which are under open source licenses.
And let’s not forget the great apps that are Linux only. Sure, there are some things that are still not available on the Linux desktop, but with WINE and all of the other cool software we love (Geany, Banshee…) gives us the power we need.
So, my question goes to everyone who uses Linux as their main desktop. Why do you? Is it the freedom? The apps? The speed? Tell us!
Mockup from www.portefolje.net
A Linux distro is basically someone saying: here’s a collection of packages that works well together, now keep it or change it as you wish.
Oh I get it, if GNU/Linux can’t make the user drool when he sees a Linux desktop, we’ll never get a large userbase. Here’s what I think; let’s not teach people to recognize Linux, but let’s teach people to recognize something that works as Linux.
Lots of people are still complaining about the default Ubuntu theme and while I congratulate the artists that brought us Hardy Heron (really, making brown and orange and beige almost attractive is quite a feat), aside from the background and a few Wm tweaks here & there, there was nothing new, nothing to ‘Wow‘ the users.
There have been lots of posts on other blogs about how an Ubuntu theme or color scheme change would be in order for Intrepid Ibex, but what they forget to mention is that the designers don’t have an easy job, because:
You want Ubuntu to work on computers that don’t support fancy graphics.
Most of the polished and popular stuff does use the fancy graphics support.
But wait, now we’re already talking about Linux’ look. Should Linux have a look? I think not.
AWN and Compiz work on my computer - it’s always a gamble though, because most of the time, on computers older than three years, this stuff cannot work properly. Computers are getting cheaper, so most of us think it’s not a problem. We are forgetting that many people cannot afford a brand new compatible powerhouse. Many will stick with UMPC’s. So the question is, how can we make Ubuntu attractive and functional, while maintaining hardware support?
I tried it and with the current software it’s almost impossible. You have stuff like wbar, for instance the gOS team is struggling with the stuff. I don’t believe it’ll work, especially because AWN is the only good Dock that doubles as a Window navigator & Launchers, but still retains the same smooth look and feel as Mac OSX’ Dock.
You can’t make Linux restrict your choices (except if you buy Linux XP). People know the stuff’s there and everyone’s free to do apps as they want to. If you want to upgrade, you can install what you want - install a KDE app in GNOME. These projects cannot unite, because they are using the freedom to do what they want. There would be no fun in doing something you don’t want to do as a volunteer. Companies can pay the developers to do something unified, but the community is still bigger. And you don0′t boss the community. How would you feel when you wouldn’t be able to switch to KDE just because this distro wants other users to know it’s Linux when they see GNOME?
That was my little rant, how do you feel about Ubuntu’s look? Do you also share my thoughts that it would be almost impossible to restrict Linux to a unified look & feel? Please comment, I’m excited to read what other people think about this.
