Rethinking the Linux Distribution? 213
eldavojohn writes "ONLamp.com is running an interesting article about rethinking how the community distributes Linux and the open source applications that often come with Linux. The author isn't arguing that Linux needs to become a full blown web OS over night but instead, asking if the community should be considering 'Software as a Service' and what he means by that is perhaps many of the open source applications that run on Linux should be available through a browser. The reasons for this are obvious, the code is open so anyone could host it, it would be platform independent so anyone could use it and it might attract more users to the Linux environment. The obvious note here is that many of the enterprise software makers are switching to Software as a Service, shouldn't the open source community investigate the possibility of a Web OS?"
webos (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All kidding aside... NO, Linux should not reconsider its distribution method. Software as a Service (SaaS) is not a very popular method with small and medium businesses as well since it tends to contribute into vendor lock-in.
SaaS is all about 'renting' your software. This is what Microsoft and other big companies are trying to do. Make you have a monthly bill for Vista
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Software-as-a-service is built on the fundamentally flawed concept that if a company has a continuous revenue stream, they will be able to "innovate" more, making more frequent updates. For customers, though, they see ift thusly: with purchased software, if the vendor screws me, I can at least keep using it, but with SAS software, I end up with data that I may not be able to use with any other service, and worse, that I may not even have access to retrieve and back up. As a result of this, consum
Re: (Score:2)
IMAP does the job well for email.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Software as a Service is a business model for making money. It is not a model for distribution and promotion of a free software or F/OSS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why did people begin to put apps in a web client/server architecture? Well i guess it was a combination of:
- platform independence for clients
- no installation problems for clients, no per seats costs.
- availability over a network
- programmers starting making sites with html, then using it for GUI web app toolkit:
- lack of complete control over the interface encourages scalable and accessible interfaces (ALT for images...)
But many of these are becomi
Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that just moving the application from one linux box(the client) to another(the server)? I mean, no sane person would use Windows to host something like that.... But on a more serious note, a lot of OSS developers don't have the money to smack down on bandwidth and machines just to host their projects - where as Google and Microsoft can afford it.
i thought this first, but it might save some bandwidth in the long run by people not downloading a 600meg cd, then the usual distro upgrades etc, instead they might use 1meg of traffic in writing a letter using software as a service.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely doable. The one issue is network *latency*, not bandwidth, server power or disk space.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually no (Score:2)
In terms of bandwidth, you'd typically charge. Say $10/month per seat.
Not two boxes; can be one box (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not two boxes; can be one box (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
personally, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. When you have any kind of bandwidth limitations, software as a service just doesn't make sense. For those of you at universities, you will recall that sometime in the beginning of September every year, after a long summer of relatively speedy service, the network suddenly comes to a screeching slowdown as all the students return. The network similarly picks up in May when most of the students go away.
Additionally, software as a service is open to all kinds of abuse (think how TiVo has gotten
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe nobody without millionaire parents could afford a university education if their fees had to pay for the required bandwidth.
Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that a good selling point, from the perspective of a potential client? Browser-based applications always bring doubts about security with them, and a lot of people would be reassured in using servers owned by well-known companies, but I'm not sure how many would be enthusiastic about connecting to "anyone"'s server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
My point here is that big software companies find software-as-a-service attractive, and the only thing standing in their way is bandwidth. On the other hand, open-source software doesn't care about those concerns (lock-in, etc.) so what's the point in hosting it on a server? Why not just have it on my actual computer, thereby giving me full control, and a more responsive application. In a certain sense, open-source should be advertising this as an advantage.
And I certainly understand that open-source apps have the unique advantage that you can access them *both* on your local machine and (in principle) over the network. This is indeed a selling point. What I'm trying to get at is that open-source should be reminding people of the advantages of actually having local copies of software (source and binary!), and using this as a selling point. That's right, since it's open-source, it can be hosted anywhere... including on my own computer.
Don't forget the network. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because your computer has a LOT more internal bandwidth than external.
Now imagine that you're trying all of that online. All of a sudden your multi-tasking box becomes a single-task box as each of those apps tries to share your limited bandwidth. For most of us, it's easier to buy a faster CPU or hard drive than it is to get a faster Internet connection.
And that's just ONE computer with its own Internet connection. It only gets worse when you start adding more people to your connection.
And the goal is to do what? Get more people to use Free software?
The reason more people don't use Free software is that their workstation already has similar apps installed. Why download AbiWord when 90% of the workstations out there already have Notepad and Wordpad installed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your cost per seat? (Score:2)
IT support team costs?
Software licensing costs?
What's your cost per seat if you DIY? What if someone will do it for $40/month per seat.
Why change direction now? (Score:5, Informative)
I think it would stupid for the AbiWord or OpenOffice teams to down tools and start working on a web-based version of the software. At the minute, a lot of productivity is wasted on browser incompatibilities and AJAX is still rather clumsy in comparison to what it could be. To get even the fairly basic functionality of AbiWord in to a web-app would take far longer to develop than it would for an equivalent desktop application.
I think the free software movement is doing very well. It's getting somewhere. I've used Windows on every PC I've owned since the Windows 3.11 days. In January I made the switch to Ubuntu on a new PC that I recently purchased. I decided to ditch Windows because I thought that Vista was a downgrade to Windows XP.
I was frankly amazed at just how good GNU/Linux really is. It isn't just tolerable, it's out and out better than Windows XP. After installation, the machine is usable in that it has all the software I need to actually start using the computer. Windows by comparison has a basic 'toolset' (if you can even call it that). The file system layout is far more intuitive than the baroque drive lettering system. The firewall is simple, powerful and non-intrusive - compare that to Windows based firewalls. Windows Update only supports Microsoft products. Ubuntu provides updates for all software packages it distributes. In short, it feels better engineered, more robust, consumer centric and easier to use.
Why should the free software movement rethink its strategy when it's just starting to gain traction in a big way? I say keep up the good work! It is no accident that Dell have decided to sell Ubuntu on their machines. This is no longer a hobbyists OS but a baby gorilla eating its way through plenty of fruit and gaining in size all the time. Watch out Microsoft!
Simon.
He starts off flawed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that is because Microsoft has a MONOPOLY on the desktop.
So don't use Microsoft's desktop monopoly as justification for changing the current approach. Linux has been gaining marketshare. There is nothing indicating that this will change.
Yes, it MAY. But it also has it's own, unique, issues. Such as having to rely upon:
#1. Your machine.
#2. Your network.
#3. Your ISP connection.
#4. The ISP connection of the service provider.
#5. The service providers hardware.
When running the same app locally means you have to rely upon:
#1. Your machine.
Yep, he's citing "Web 2.0". Usually, when someone cites "Web 2.0" it means that they're pushing more fantasy than Reality. And that holds true in this instance as well.
Why trade the reliability of apps installed on your local machine for the complexity of apps hosted somewhere else? Because it's Web 2.0 and it's cool!
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of issues with web apps. And software as a service? Given sufficient bandwidth, couldn't you do that with X11 and sshfs? Seems like we are getting to the point where people want to reinvent the square wheel.
This being said, there are a lot of reasons to go with web apps. LedgerSMB, for example, allows sa
Re: (Score:2)
Software IS the Service (Score:2)
I think the author makes a huge error when considering how FOSS can leverage the Web to improve their offering. He ignores the blindingly obvious fact that Linux would never have achieved the great things it has done without the Internet, and especially the Web. FOSS people know - possibly better than anyone else - how the Web works and what it's for.
With apologies to Marshall McLuhan, I'd li
Fanboyism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Please take your own advice...
multimedia
Actually, Linux can play all media formats, and convert between them easily. All media players support all formats in Linux. Compare this to Windows, where certain players will only play certain formats, and every player wants you to convert music into their format, and some even require you to pay for the conversion and burning features.
and games spring to mind
On Windows I can't play games from a few years ago, let alone the classic PC games I have. On Linux, I can still play all the old games, and OSS emulators provide methods to play old games from other systems (dosbox, scummvm, agi, qemu). Games that require 3D acceleration just work, and don't require fiddling around and tons of patches. Linux may not have all games running native, but it's clear that when a game is made for Linux, it works superior compared to when a game is made for any other OS.
not to mention a decent-looking UI
Well, obviously that's subjective. But then again, you can customize it to your heart's content on Linux. Not only that but you can choose between different major UIs that are each well supported and tailored to different users. And yes, you can tweak it to look/act just like Windows.
and great desktop performance
I don't recall having to reinstall Linux every 6 months to get rid of system cruft, or having to restart to get rid of dead applications or memory leaks. I've never had to shut down because an application stopped responding. When I uninstall applications, they remove cleanly and completely.
Applications don't try to steal priority over other applications, and don't try to take over each other (i.e., some toolbars that come with applications, applications stealing each others' file associations, applications trying to launch themselves on startup and won't let you turn them off). Applications don't expire without warning and force you to download a new version that may or may not even support your version of operating system. Not to mention that I can even run Linux on older computers that currently supported Windows versions choke on. I can save my home folder to easily back up all my settings and personally installed programs, they're not scattered all over the filesystem. Other users can't mess up my files by default, but I can easily give them permissions to look at, edit select files, or share their own files with me.
I can copy my hard disk install and move it to another computer and it will work fine, and if I upgrade I don't have to reinstall my operating system (the other day I moved one system from an Athlon 64 to an Athlon 64 X2, totally different motherboard, video card, expansion cards, hard drive, audio, etc. I copied the Linux installation over onto the new one and when I started it up, you wouldn't even know anything had changed. Not a single dialog box nagging me that this and that was found, and this is changed, where is that driver, etc). All the required drivers come with my system and I don't need to install every hardware vendor's custom applet to sit near my clock and nag me about updates, promotions, or even just take up space.
If I have a printer, the interface for switching settings and viewing ink levels are the same as every other printer. I don't need to learn anything new to learn how to use my new printer, it just works the same. My sound card doesn't have a billion stupid custom applications that I don't want to use but have to install anyway because the driver updates require that they be there.
Anyway, 'nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
I ran Linu
It may be too late for Microsoft now but... (Score:2)
Here's what I wrote back when there was still hope for Microsoft:
If I w
No thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing in that list that restricts that app to be browser-*based*. You can build an offline, desktop-based (but maybe browser-*launched*) app that installs and uninstalls simply, has collaboration features and updates automatically. With VM techno
Re: (Score:2)
How about Linux / GNOME / Firefox / Java applets? It's been done for ages and found wanting. Any of those three options you listed had better go through and see why Java isn't used for this, and the challenges Java had to get through to go as far as it did.
The internet will never be available 100% (Score:2)
Agreed. While you are at school and see problems with this, it is nothing compared to when networks go out in a large company. In many companies, especially larger ones, if the network goes out for whatever reason, most if not all work stops if it relies on those network resources (it doesn't happen often and you can rail all you want about incompetent admins, but such is life, shit happens). Take large software projects where people can no longer check out code from centralized repositories, or accounti
Its all been done (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason for the 'do it in the browser' meme seems to be set up for web this and web that and aren't set up for giving you Windows TS or Unix Shell accounts....
Oh, and X11 isn't that efficient over a network of course!
Re: (Score:2)
We used to do this at university, for some serious scientific applications requiring net io or RAM.
However, we were all used to saving regularly as the X protocol doesn't seem too resilient to brief drops in connectivity. (This is using X over SSH, not XDM).
X is also very chatty by default, unless using LBX etc, and ssh compression.
The thing is, 80% of people seem to just use their laptop/computer for browsing t'
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and X11 isn't that efficient over a network of course!
I'd actually like to see X11 improved so that it is more efficient over a network. Even over my 802.11g, there's a noticeable lag. That would be expected, except for the fact that if you consider that if you run an X11 app over something like DSL, it's insanely noticeable. I'm talking about things like web browsing or office applications too, not watching YouTube videos over the network or doing something stupid like trying to play Quake.
Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, I'll take that as a yes. When do we start?
- A delusional web 2.0 bubble guy
Why "Through a Browser" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd need a hell of a good reason to change that
The OP's reason for changing that is that html and httpd are quite limiting in the interfaces you can create. Browsers, http, html were all created with the purpose of viewing documents. The fact that they've been robust enough to replace some applications is pretty amazing, but simply having a large installed base of browsers isn't really enough reason to mandate that all networked applications should use a brower.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Think before posting (Score:5, Interesting)
Certain applications make sense on the web. Web search engines, for instance. Even maps, and seeking directions from place to place. Basically, anything that takes large amounts of information and makes it readily accessible. I can understand those being on the web.
But... word processing? Image manipulation? *Why* would I want to do that? What does it gain me?
Nothing.
What do I lose?
Control. If I choose to change applications, or try a new application, I am at the mercy of the host. If the host decides to upgrade, and I hate the new version, I am at the mercy of the host.
The whole idea smacks of, "Let's do it, because we can!"
Corporations like Microsoft and Google want us to go that route, because then *they* get to control even more of our lives. But why would *we* want that?
Collaboration can happen without application hosting. It'd be better if we focussed instead on creating a great P2P collaboration framework, and build that into many applications, such as OOo, or the Gimp, or any other system you might want to use for multi-authored documents.
But the web?
Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need developers to run the applications that a typical office use? I can see if it was some vertical software solution, but that would be in-house anyway. Most wordprocessors and spreadsheets come ready to install and use.
At my workplace most of our effort is in network security and availability, Web applications would actually make their job even more critical (no network, no
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like a VMware appliance? (Score:2)
Other images can be provided for other virtualization services, I'm familiar with the VMware route.
Consolation is what's needed (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd rather see an official GNOME distro, an official KDE distro, and a 'server' distro that people can install their own stuff on. After-all, Fedora running GNOME is more similar to Ubuntu running GNOME than Fedora running KDE, as far as users are concerned. It's ridiculous to have dozens of distros, almost all of which use one of two (or both!) windowing systems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But not as far as people who actually care are concerned. Why should Linux pander to the lowest common denominator?
It's ridiculous to have dozens of distros, almost all of which use one of two (or both!) windowing systems.
No, it is not. Many have gigantic differences if you know more about the OS than the windowing system you are using. Try a few flavors without X even insta
This reminds me of the old Dilbert strip... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Software as a Service" is 100% a marketing term. Trust me, Mr. Newbie Author, the open source community has been thinking of avoiding desktop deployment for a long, long time - just ask the Apache team or anyone who's ever written a web app.
"Linux as a Web OS"? I'm not sure you know what Linux is if that's the best thing that came out of your head the last time you toked up.
Enterprise software makers motivation (Score:2)
Enterprise software makers do this as a way to increase their control, not because it is in their customers best interest.
Control is not a motivating factor for OSS. The best solution is. This will usually _not_ be software as a service.
Bollocks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both posting this story and replying to it are in the interest of community education. Other than that I agree with your comment.
Regards.
Web OS is a good thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux already works like that (Score:2)
Geez... (Score:5, Insightful)
Goonix! (Google based Linux Distro!) (Score:2, Interesting)
Misses driving forces behind software as service (Score:2)
It seems to me there are main driving forces behind moving to software as a service:
In the first case, why would Linux/OSS developers be interested in this? Generally speaking, it is free (as in gratis) software. They're not in it to maximise profits. Of course, Linux/O
No more distribution (Score:2)
The practical impact of that means that if I develop a cool web app and someone (a company?) uses it, suddenly they don't have to give the changes they make back to me anymore, which is the goal of most open source/free software licenses.
I wouldn't like that one bit...
it's a bogus idea. (Score:2)
Network issues? (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
six reasons this is a stupid article (Score:5, Insightful)
WebOS means moving the problem, not fixing it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop posting this crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Certain software works well as a service. Anything that is inherently multi-user, such as social chat, collaboration, bulletin boards (including the so-called Web 2.0, which is really not much more innovative than the dial-up bulletin boards of the '80s) - all those things work well as a network service. The querying of large databases can work well too, depending on what the data is. Google, encyclopedias, etc. Certain software doesn't. OpenOffice will always work best on the desktop.
"Software as a service" is a catch phrase the editors here seem to like to push in articles as it riles up those of us who know better and attracts comments. Comments attract more comments, and this pumps up Slashdot. The thing is, this type of behaviour is self-defeating, as while it does churn the butter, but some spills out. Every time you poke a stick into a hornets nest, sure, the hive will get all riled, but some will just get fed up fly somewhere else, and it does nothing to attract new blood.
So, for everyone's sake, please stop posting crap like this.
Roll up your sleeves or shut the fuck up (Score:2)
Reinventing the wheel doesn't make things better.. (Score:2)
Window manager == Browser windows and tabs
X protocol == HTTP layer
X event model == javascript + ajax
So basically, what the author wants is X Window, he just doesn't know it. All around, a we
Philosophically "no!" (Score:2, Interesting)
Moving to a "software as service" model such as Web applications is a step back to the mainframe days, in which someone else controls the software you use. The benefit of the personal computer was that the software resided on the user's computer, under the user's control. This increased the freedom of the user. The free-as-in-speech software movement further increased the freedom of the user by allowing the user to own, modify, improve and share the software. This can't happen with the "software as serv
no.....seriously no (Score:3, Insightful)
cost less. Well how can you cost less than a distribution like Debian or Ubuntu? Granted another benefit is that
you can run software as service on less expensive hardware, but come on, are you trying to tell me that a $250
desktop is too expensive?
News Fash: Hardware is cheap.
It's the software that's the expensive part of business. I don't think FOSS should volunteer bandwidth and server
time like that. Doesn't FOSS already give enough, hosting free software in repositories making it that much more
convenient to use the software you want at any time?
No such thing as a web os (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But with a WebOS (nice name) we can use that OS under an abstract layer, that will run a browser, that will run an OS, with another abstraction layer...
And if we put a browser on top of that, we'll be even able to surf the web!!!!
Makes perfect sense (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense to me. A discussion that only smart people who know very well what they're doing, will lead. Not just some random Web 2.0 talk, like most of the garbage out there, which sees only nails, since it just sees a browser, pardon, a hammer.
Ok, so. Who's porting the Linux kernel to JavaScript? Anyone? We're making Linux hosted, right?
Guys? Where are you going??
First hosted app (Score:3, Funny)
Once we have the AJAX Apache+PHP, we can run PHP in it, which can generate more AJAX pages.
In those pages, we can host Apache+PHP again.
I agree, new ideas are good. (Score:2)
Back when Quake III Arena first came out, the boxed set came with a copy of SuSE Linux, I think it was 6.0. I thought "What a cool idea, you can buy a game and it comes with an OS that can run it for free." Chances are few copies of that SuSE Linux 6.0 were actually put to use, but
The Browser is not a good app container (Score:2)
The WEB browser was never designed for this. Stop trying to hammer your square peg into the round hole!
No thanks. (Score:2)
different ways (Score:2)
Why? Because software isn't a service. Selling access to software is what the commercial software industry is trying because it solves many problems for them, like piracy and how to keep users charging after the first bill. Neither of these and very few of the others are issues Free Software needs to burden itself with.
Because, you know, in the end we need it all. Some stuff is best done as a web app. Some stu
Here's the way of the future, folks (Score:3, Interesting)
Another key word is "isolated sandbox". I should be able to install apps without the fear that they'll wreck my system. I should be able to remove them at the drop of a hat, too, with no negative consequences. Apps must know how to save both locally and "in the cloud", too, and they must be intuitive with respect to where you save. Once you've fully downloaded the app, you must be able to run it locally.
This just makes sense. You can't run a huge number of apps on the server, because server resources are not limitless. Client resources are pretty much limitless today, though. So no matter how you slice it, apps have to be run on the client and what's missing is a delivery mechanism that would make them as convenient as webapps.
There, I've outlined the strategy for the next 5 years. Now the question is, who will implement it faster, FOSS or Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
So.. I could be wrong here, but you're basically talking about Zero Install [0install.net]. I really wish someone would base a distro on this technology.. (by someone, I mean someone with more free time than myself at the moment.)
Pretty much stuffs the free software model... (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone wants to write a conventional wordprocessor they can choose to give it away for free without taking on any costs or liability. If someone wants to use that wordprocessor they can test it to their satisfaction and be fairly certain that it will then continue working. Worst case scanario - it doesn't keep up with some OS update in the future - and obviously they've checked that it uses an open file format, so that they won't lose their data.
OTOH, a software-as-a-service wordprocessor is as much use as an inflatable dartboard unless someone is going to provide that service and make some minumum level of service guarantee (including data backups). That costs.
Now, it would be great if there were Free/Open Source software-as-a-service SERVERS for people or companies who wanted to run their own "personal" centralised system - but as the main source of applications for a "Free" OS it just ain't gonna fly.
It's all about the ads (Score:2)
"Software as a service" is mostly about putting ads into applications. Or at least the current version of "service" is. The previous try at this, "application service providers" [wikipedia.org] (remember those) was pay per view, which didn't fly.
The only reason the "browser as a platform" idea is popular is because the process of installing software has become so awful. The original MacOS had approximately the right idea; put an application in any folder, anywhere, and the Finder will find it. What we have now is "Le
Is anyone else bothered? (Score:3, Interesting)
As best I can tell, the Affero license addresses this, by a clause partnered with specific functionality in the program. 'If this software came with functionality to give source code to users, you may not remove it.' or something to that effect. I've already seen one or two sites that have decided that it didn't apply to them, and the development community behind it sounded like "so what?" Which is fine I suppose, but it feels strange to me that they were able to make a site for a client based largely on existing OAGPL'd code, integrate the code with existing technology(that is also widely used and would be interesting to many people), fix bugs, and then turn around and declare yourself unable and unrequired to fulfill the obligations imposed on you by the agreement. This is compounded by the fact that generally its much harder to tell when a site is appropriating OAGPL'd code. With traditional software, strings will usually catch hidden strings, debugging statements etc. Web software only has the output to look at.
I am somewhat comforted by the fact their site is already out of date, so either they or their client will be facing increasing costs in maintaining the site.
This is dumb. (Score:2)
Thus, I invite you to tag this story with the really undervalued "dumbestfuckingidea" tag.
Really, if you need something to further your agenda, FUCKING BUILD IT! Don't ask a rather large community to change their ways radically to a medium that is one giant security vulnerability.
The mainframe will rise again? (Score:2)
This sounds like X terminals (ok, web terminals) connected to a powerful server. Not a new idea, and one that has been abandoned long ago. The performance hit is considerable and, most importantly, it does not make much sense unless you can save a LOT of money in the process. Considering the fact that the cheapest contemporary PC (say, the $700 laptop I'm using now) is able to run the toughest Office applications without breaking a sweat, I don't see why I should be tied to a provider for something that ca
Ill pass (Score:2)
( sure, i can host myself, even today i do things remotely often, but i doubt many can/will do that so are we to rely on some kind benefactor ? )
one step at a time (Score:2)
But first build the AJAXy replacements, then move people to them. And this can be done one application at a time. In fact, web based applications and server applications are moving into Linux-based distributions as fast as possible.
I think
Both? (Score:2)
The benefits would be many, and drastic:
A user can use any version, any time. Packages are built nightly, and if a minor version provides the best compatibility with any of my older documents, I can travel back in time to whenever. To avoid confusion, a dot or well-known-stable version would be the default.
Script-based languages could have multiple interfaces. A logged-in
Linux Should Include Hardware (Score:2)
If you are making a Linux distribution you ought to be shipping on a PC, not a DVD. The "technically advanced user" ca
Re: (Score:2)
In real terms, it's a move backwards in time, back to the mean ol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)