Seems the app would also have to filter-out the sounds of hands
pounding the keyboard, hair being torn out, and the gnashing of teeth.

Have you considered any of the "Shuttle" systems? One client I had
in 2006 had a ton of those running various Linux distros, and NASA's
Ames Research Center essentially cobbled-up a supercomputer using over
1000 of them networked together. NewEgg <http://www.newegg.com> seems
to be the preferred vendor for Shuttles. Nice thing about Shuttles is
their size -- the proverbial cigar box -- and they can be stacked
atop one another.

I am in a writing mood tonight. Well actually that's mostly what I do... Sooo,
here goes...
First off, I commend you for trying Linux. Secondly, I think that we are closer
to having things work out of the box than you think. Thirdly Windows is not as
good as most people think despite having a cozy relationship with OEMs. Vista
has fewer drivers than Linux. Lots of hardware does not work and will never work
on Vista. What do Windows users do when this happens? They don't rag on about
Windows, they go out and buy new equipment.

When many people come to Linux from Windows their expectation is wrong. They
expect that it will be the same as Windows. They see the differences between
Linux and Windows as Linux is deficient because it is not like Windows. They use
hardware that was made specifically for Windows and expect it to just work. Plug
that same equipment in a Mac and it may or may not work.
I have equipment that works better in Linux than Windows. I have some equipment
that will not work in Windows, but works in Linux. I have some equipment where
that is reversed. It works in Windows, but not in Linux. I have two scanners. My
el cheapo Canon works equally well in Windows XP and Linux, but my expensive HP
scanner works better in Linux. It is easier to install. I don't need a disk for
either in Linux and for the HP, I need to fiddle with the settings because XP
wants to use its own driver, that does not work. To install my Brother Laser
printer in Linux I have to choose it from a list, but in Windows I need to
insert my CD and install lots of garbage that I will never use or need again.
The same can be said for my HP photo printer. In Linux it is installed without
me having to do anything. In XP I need to insert the disk and it comes with a
couple of hundred MBs of utilities that are installed and an icon that is run at
startup and sits in my
system tray and lots more on my desktop and in the menu. Give me a break. I
just want to install the printer not fill my hard drive.
In fairness, I have a couple of webcams that don't work in Linux, but they
aren't much good in Windows either. My media player works in Linux, but it is
easier to use in Windows. The reason is that it is made to work with Media
Player. But again in XP it installs, the driver, a program that runs in the
system tray, Media Player 10, whether you want it or not and .Net. In Linux, I
just need to open Amarok and set it to use MTP device. It isn't fancy, but it
works.
Windows users see all of these things as normal and find the Linux way foreign
and therefore inferior. I see the Windows way as being heavy handed and
unnecessary. It is all about the way you think of these things.
So my challenge for Windows users is to change the way they think. Don't come to
Linux expecting it to be Windows. Come to it expecting it to be different.
Expect more. Expect hardware to be detected and installed without inserting a
disk. Expect not to have to re-boot after installing hardware. Expect not to
have things wanting to install that you don't need. Expect not to have icons
cluttering your desktop or running in your system tray. It isn't about lowering
the bar, but about raising it.
If something does not work in Linux, there is probably a good reason for it. It
was probably made to work with Windows (and maybe only in Windows like
Winmodems) or it is old and was probably in use before Linux became good at
detecting and installing drivers (much thanks to the kernel developers for
bringing us to our current state of excellence, BTW). That hardware would
probably be put out to pasture in Windows, but people expect it to work in Linux
because they have heard that Linux works well on old systems. Yes, but there are
limits.
That being said, Linux is not perfect. There are still areas where we lag
behind, but those aren't usually the things that people are looking for. You
won't find lots of work being done for modems not because Linux is lacking, but
because dialup is old technology and its days are numbered. It just would not be
a good use of resources to commit developers to working on improving dialup. If
that is your thing then don't expect much from Windows or Linux in the way of
new work. The only reason why Windows has the edge here is that it does not have
to do any new work. It is work that was done long ago.
You will find lots of work being done on security and file systems even though
Linux has a big lead on Windows in these areas. Users and businesses demand a
system that us secure, stable and reliable. Everything else goes from a solid
foundation. You will find lots of work being done on graphics and sound because
media is huge.
In the areas that count, Linux is not only very competitive, but some would say
it has a lead or at least on par with the Mac. XP is yeaterday's OS. The Windows
file system is at least a dozen years old and NTFS is older than that. Windows
has not made a single improvement to their file system in that time. It has no
journalling. It becomes defragmented and it is subject to data loss when it
crashes. They place low priority on your data because they can take you for
granted. They don't have to make their OS better because they can sell it and
people will buy it no matter how outdated or lousy it is, just because it is
familiar.
You say that if people boot up Linux and nothing works that people will leave.
In my experience that is usually not the case. Usually everything works. In a
few cases one or two things won't work right a way. In this forum, we get people
with problems, but the world is full of users who do not have problems. Don't
base your opinion of Linux on reading about the problems of people on a forum.
It is like basing your opinon on the state of health of the nation after only
visiting the emergency room.
I am encouraged by your letter. You tried. You see Windows as having problems.
You hope to return to Linux. My concern is that you have formed an unhealthy
opinion and don't have a full appreciation of Linux. That could be due to your
hardware configuration or lack of experience or perhaps it was due to
unrealistic expectations.
You will find computer problems everywhere. Even experienced users get them.
This happens irrespective of the OS. The difference is that experienced users
have done this often enough that they have learned from their mistakes. They
have seen just about everything happen that can happen so little surprises them.
The only guarantee that I can make is that as long as you are using a computer
there will be problems whether you stick with Windows or switch to another OS.
That is the nature of the beast. Hardware fails. OSes and applications have a
shelf life. And things change. If you expect it to be static, then perhaps
Microsoft still has hope of selling XP in another 8 years. But even they see XP
as being too old to base their future hopes on it.
Finally, I address the subject of your posting, "the killer ap". I don't think
that such a thing exists. There are good applications but no killer apps. I
think that most users do not even use most of the features of what they have and
can actually get by with less, not more. However, that says more about us than
it does about the apps. We want it all. We want in now and we want it for as
little money as we can get away with.
I listened to a podcast today on Jokosher, a Gnome sound editor. It reminded me
of how Linux does things differently. They started with an idea and one
developer. They found others interested in the same thing. They added developers
one by one and added to the program gradually. It is good at doing what it does.
The project is viable and it is growing slowly. They have plans to add new
features and not rush into it. The program will evolve over time. And it will
evolve new features as users and developers see the demand for them, not an
isolation or just because they can do it.
In contrast a commercial vendor would have a good general idea, let's say to
make a sound editor. Then they would get together a team and dream up every
possible option to add that is better tthan the competition and hire lots of
developers, take a year or two to develop it and market the heck out of it. It
would be big and bloated and have tons of features, most of which people would
not use. It would cost lots to develop and it would sell for a ridiculous amount
of money, all because someone wanted to write a killer app.
Lots of Windows applications have the killer app rep whether it is MSOffice or
Photoshop. Most of the copies for these killer apps are pirated because they are
too expensive to actually buy. They all are huge and use a lot of resources and
most users only use a small fraction of what they can do. Is that what you mean
by a killer app? Who needs them?
Best wishes,
Roy
I did not get all of the writing out of my system. Sorry.
P.S. Here is why I use Linux:
(My Linux testamonial, if you will, is not made to elicite discussion but to
tell my past experience and why I write some of the things that I write. I hope
that if there is response to this part that it will be others' experience and
not discussing mine. And if you don't care to read this that is good, too.
Writing is what I do for fun.)
I own a copy of XP, actually more than one. If it was good, I would use it. I
cut my teeth on Windows and DOS before that. Microsoft and I have a long
history. I gave up on it only after Microsoft gave up on me. That old
what-have-you-done-for-me-lately thing, I guess. I paid them money and got
patches, no support and had little to show for it in the end. In fact the more I
used their patches, the worse it often worked. Windows ME was what convinced me
that Microsoft could not make a decent OS. Bloatware was in everything they did.
Everything after that only convinced me that I was right.
I was looking for alternatives long before I finally switched, due to these
philosophical differences. I had dabbled in OS2/ Warp, Mac OS, Unix and several
now defunct OSes that never caught on. I did Windows well. I could fix it and
routinely helped others with their Windows problems. So switching would cost me
something. I would be losing not just Windows, but I would be losing all of my
experience, trading competency for frustration. I tried to talk myself out of it
before I finally bit the bullet and tried Linux which was shortly after XP made
its debut.
After they sold me at least three copies of Windows, I caught on that they did
not care if I enjoyed using Windows as long as they got their money and made
sure that I was not cheating them out of getting more. They started checking up
on me and my actions and installing things that I did not want such as WGA.
Here, was my own computer being turned against me. By this time, I was using
Linux regularly, but still dual booted into Windows.
I had friends who found that their computers were as good as being infected with
viruses because their copy of Windows was not legal. Even people whom I knew had
legitimate licenses were caught because some technician had worked on their
system and had reinstalled Windows without their key. I suddenly realized that
it was no longer about me or my friends or about making us happy; the whole
thing was about Microsoft and assuring their bottom line was secure. As far as
they were concerned, I no longer owned my computer, they thought that they did.
When I came to this realization, I gave up on Windows altogether and have not
used it for years now. When I do, it is a painful experience. It reminds me of
all of that bad history. It reminds me of how little respect Microsoft has for
me. And it reminds me that they can't make a decent OS if they tried. And they
have. And failed.
Although Microsoft has not moved on, I have. They continue to peddle XP when
they can or to convince people that Vista is not that bad. I don't really care
anymore. I actually hoped that Microsoft would get better and that Windows could
be improved at one point. But those times are long gone. There is little they
could do that would interest me or change my mind because I know that their real
motive is not to help me, but to make me into a Microserf. And in this I refuse.
If Linux was complete garbage, I would prefer it to Windows for the above
reasons. I want to count for something. I want to pay money for something that
is worth the money and I want the company that I do business with to care about
me more than just getting my money. I would like to believe that they have my
best interest as their first priority. And I want them to show pride in their
own work. If they can't be proud of it then I can't respect their work.
Fortunately for me, I did not find this in a company, but in an idea. It is
Linux which is not a company at all. And it is not profit and market driven, but
is user driven. I have nothing against capitalism or making profits, but when it
comes to my money I want it to speak for me and my ideals. If anybody wants my
business then they need to win my trust.

Linux well said. This is the article I should (could, would) have
written. It echoes my sentiments and the windows experience I had. In
fact I still (unfortunately) have the windows experience as I am an it
in an organization which uses only windows, but at home I use Linux.

Though I generally agree with everything else you wrote in your
article, the above requires clarification.

Though the original NTFS version 1 debuted in 1993, journaling has
been available in NTFS since Win2K, and Vista's NTFS is version 6.
Windows XP has only NTFS version 3.1.

UNIX file systems (UFS) are even older; age isn't everything. :-)
And Sun's new ZFS (2004) is simply incredible and open source.

You can read this <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS> for many of the
NTFS details, but note NTFS has undergone many development changes
over its lifetime and the NTFS version 6 with Server 2008 and Vista
includes:

Access Control Lists, Alternate Data Streams, quotas, sparse files,
volume mount points like UNIX/Linux (additional file systems can be
mounted without the need for a drive letter), directory junctions (aka
Linux sym links), hard links, hierarchical storage management, volume
shadow copy, file compression, single-instance storage, encryption,
partition shrinking/growing, self-healing, and USN journaling. Pull
the power cord on a Vista system while it's running, wait 10 seconds,
power the system back up and nothing's lost; I tried it, it works.

As much as we may dislike Microsoft, they do have some smart people
working there who do know what they're doing. :-)

A reasonably-good general comparison of file systems is here:

<en....pedia.org/.../Comparison_of_file_systems>

Sun's open source ZFS (128-bit filesystem) is described here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS>

and note ZFS is used by MacOS X Server and is also available for
Linux via FUSE. I am testing ZFS on one of my FreeBSD 7.0 systems
though I'll never reach its limit -- it's a zettabyte system and
can store 18 billion billion *MORE* info than present 64-bit systems.

I think that if you are not a writer for a Linux Mag then maybe
you should be. You've written something that should be submitted to
PC World or PC Magazine.
I've used a lot of different operating systems and I used to
build and repair Windows machines as well as give classes on how to
use them.
In about 2004 I bought an iBook. I was amazed at how easy it
was to get things done. After about three years I sold the iBook
after my little girl scratched the screen. I was planning on getting
a Macbook but while I was saving up to buy one I put Ubuntu on an old
PIII. I was blown away at the performance and it's ease of use. I
told my wife that it was like a "poor man's" OS X.
I didn't mean that in the sense that it was inferior because I
think in some ways Ubuntu is superior to OS X. For instance, Ubuntu
is far more customizable. What I was referring to was both Ubuntu's
cost and the low cost of the hardware it can be run on.
I shelved my plans to buy a Macbook and bought an Acer laptop
for about half the cost of what a Macbook would have cost me. The
Acer was obviously built for Vista (the manual for it was full of
pictures of Vista), but ACer sold it with a non-gui version of Linux.
I installed Ubuntu 7.04 and was disappointed. Neither the web
cam nor the wifi worked. So I ended up installing Windows XP. When
7.10 came out my wifi was fixed. I'm now running Ubuntu 8.10 Beta on
my Acer and my tower.
The built in web cam on my Acer still doesn't work right. I
have bought a Canon ip1880 thinking it would work with Ubuntu but
found out I was wrong. So my wife and decide that if the final
version of 8.10 didn't fix the web cam and the printer problems we
would buy Vista. We like Vista better than XP.
A few nights ago I changed my mind. I told my wife that for
the price of Vista I could buy an external web cam and a printer that
worked with Ubuntu.
I like OS X but I have a problem with Apple. They have set up
OS X in such a way to make it difficult for basic users to customize
it. Also they made a big deal out of OS X being only $129 and
compared it to Vista's higher price but they keep the hardware
required to run OS X at a higher price.
Before Vista came out, I was very doubtful about Microsoft's
claims that Vista would be more secure and more stable. But after
trying it I was amazed that it was more secure and more stable. Also
I liked the look of it.
I think Ubuntu is great. Everything I could do in OS X I can
do in Ubuntu. I can make Ubuntu "mine". I can make it look exactly
the way I want it to look. I can decide what software I use and if I
got back into programming I could even change the programs.
I chose Ubuntu over any other Linux distro because it gave me
the same experience that I got from OS X. I chose to stay with it and
leave OS X and Windows behind because of what I believe. I believe
that software shouldn't cost huge prices and that you shouldn't have
to spend a lot of money for the hardware to run it on.
That's just my belief and my opinion. If people want to use
Windows or OS X that's their choice. It's all about freedom of
choice. That's why I choose to stay with Ubuntu.

I attempted to express the idea that frustrated computer users want a way to
find solutions.

Yes, the answers are out there, but simple users don't have time to dive head
first into an un-indexed informational dumpster to find out why something
doesn't work.

To use a firearm metaphor, if I have a broken gun, or I need to do a trigger job
on a 1911, .45ACP, I pull out my "/Ed Brown's 1911/ Bench Reference" /CD/-Rom
<www.midwayusa.com/.../showpage\
=froogle&utm_medium=free&utm_campaign=10614>, turn to page 184 in "The Gun
Digest Book of Firearms Assembly/Disassembly Part I: Automatic Pistols, round up
my tools, and my Brownell's catalog and go to work. Worst case scenario, if I
can't fix something, I will have the correct names for problem areas when I ask
for help.

The fluidity of computer hardware and software development makes finding
solutions more challenging. Part of the successful process of creation requires
the development of good documentation. All I am asking is for the marriage of
that documentation to good search engine algorithms.

The goal is to form your search query so only one result is returned.
It can be done (although not always practicably :-)

Here's a tip: visit the URLs (Linux Canuck) frequently cites in his
articles. Save the web page as a PDF file for later easier reading and
searching.

So how does one save web pages as PDFs? Simple, and I use two methods
depending on the web page (and it does take some practice):

1. copy'n'paste the specific text and graphics and diagrams from the
web page into OpenOffice's word-processor" (counterpart to MS Word),
then use the "Export Directly as PDF" from OO's tool bar. Simple,
fast, and easy though some times reformatting occurs; practice,
practice, practice. :-) Remeber that in Linux/UNIX the "copy" area
is selected with left-Mouse and the "paste" is center-Mouse (or the
Paste button in OO's Word Processor).

2. to save the whole web page, Ctrl-A selects everything (at least
in Firefox), then paste it in OpenOffice and export as a PDF.

Make sure the filenames you choose for the PDFs are descriptive and
are saved in logically-name directories (e.g., Sound, Boot_Problems,
Backups, Network_Config, etc.).

I have literally many 1000s of such PDFs from over the years and the
value of saving info in PDFs has proven itself time after time.

Actually Linux's FS is newer still newer. The original dates for both Linux and
Windows file systems still favor Linux. Ext was an improvement on FAT, ext3 was
an improvement on NTFS. FAT32 was after NTFS, but was inferior in many ways.
When you consider updates to NTFS, Linux still wins as ReiserFS came out in 2001
and there are updates to both ext and Reiser in the works. Reiser4 and Ext4 are
available for use, but are still considered to be in development. I agree that
ZFS looks great. There is no reason why it can't work with Linux. It is just a
matter of time.

My point was (and still is) that this is an area where MS is weak and it is an
area where they have consistently de-valued the end user and his or her data.
Your points may have corrected my opinion that MS is static, but it does not
take away from the overall idea that they could have and should have done more.
Instead they use their revenue to push ahead with OSes that nobody wants and few
need. This of course all comes at the expense of the end users who have provided
that very revenue that enables them to go forward. Their investment is not for
current users, but in getting future users. Enough said.

Linux continues to provide user driven OSes and they keep pace with security and
file systems. In Linux, the disparate parts often drive improvements in other
parts which is good to see. Linux is unique in this. Lots of good work is also
being done in open Solaris and in BSD. We can't forget about them as they are
our cousins. They can enable us to push the envelop as well.

Windows users may not be familiar with it because Adobe
charges a fortune for a pdf writer and M$ considered putting one into Vista, but
decided not to cut off a source of revenue for one of its partners. With Linux
pdf writing is built in. You can install either a pdf printer or write to file
as either pdf or postscript.

I write to pdfs all of the time. I use it for recipe cards, tips I find on the
net for computing or photography, and articles I want to read later. This is
something worth remembering, especially if you are environmentally conscious and
want to avoid using paper or if you want to manage your space using electronic
means.

Here's an example of my "tip" using the "KDE and Gnome Comparison"
URL you recently posted:

<thadlabs.com/.../KDE_and_Gnome_Comparison.pdf>

and here's the original URL:

<http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kdegnome>

Note I always add the original URL as the last line in any PDFs
I create; I neglected to mention that in the original article.

> Great idea, Thad!

Glad to help, and I hope the "tip" proves useful for others, too!

Let me rephrase my thought on developing a killer ap.

Let's call it a killer book, written in mainstream American English (yes we will
add other languages after we have established a working model) with a good
index, glossery, table of contents, and appendix.

Let's take a look at a couple of sample target markets.

It could be an extremely knowledgeable person with research skills....

Let's assume that my default home page is google's advanced search
<*http://tinyurl.com/586ly4*>. Lets also assume I know how to construct a
Boolean Search <*http://tinyurl.com/5kyql4*>. Let's assume that my background is
as a graduate school dropout in history, with a requisite background in
researching beginning with card catalogs in the'60's. Let's assume that I have
been assembling ubuntu bookmarks, notes in Open Office, and .pdfs.

Or.....

I could be a non academician with two jobs, a young family, and a new computer
with Ubuntu installed.

Time is the issue.

If both illustrated demographics are computer users, rather that computer
tinkerers, anything that can reduce background "busy work" is a plus.

How much time does the young family man have, or the old guy have left, to
research and write his own "book" on Ubuntu each time he has to plug in his
thumb drive or printer?

The current choice for a user is to pay a bundle in dollars for a Macintosh and
expensive software, use Ubuntu and pay in lost productivity time, or stumble
along with the compromise known as windows.

In order for Ubuntu to make gains in the computer user community, it must reduce
its cost in lost productivity for new and intermediate users.

There are many Linux resources in addition to the web. There are several Linux
for Dummies type of books which are not geared to the geek.

Linux has had the rep of being for geeks, but it is time that it lost that
image. It is user friendly, but it just it isn't a clone of Windows. In other
words, you need to forget about the Windows way of doing things and embrace the
Linux way.

I for one do not like the commandline. I do everything that I can to avoid. I am
a lousy typist and hate repeating myself by re-typing (and yes I know the
shortcuts). I have an even worse memory so that if I don't use it every day then
forget it quickly. So I try to do everything via the GUI if I can. When you go
for help on the net it is often the first thing they tell you to do which for me
is a waste of time. The reason that newbies have trouble researching how to
solve a problem is that there are many helpful Linux gurus who only know the
commandline. They think that it is always faster and more powerful, but this
isn't always the case in my experience. If you don't know what you are doing, it
could also be a faster way to mess up your computer. There are graphical tools
for almost everything now and they are usually quite intuitive.

The differences between Linux and Windows are subtle at the GUI level, but
extreme at the more basic levels. That is why I try to get new users to use the
GUI whenever possible. Many Windows users have never used the commandline. It
was what I cut my teeth on so it is easier for somebody like me. Even then, I
try to avoid it because it is labor intensive, IMO.

If time is the issue for you then perhaps learning a new OS is more than you can
deal with. There is a learning curve involved with learning anything new. I
don't think that it is a steep as many people make it out to be. It is more
about adopting a new mindset and not thinking that it is hard merely because it
is different from what you have done in the past.

Let's start with the assumption that many people make, it is easier in Windows.
Windows is not easy. It gets many users into situations that they cannot resolve
on their own. People seem to cut that OS more slack than it deserves by thinking
that problems with Windows are just accepted as part of the package. If your
hardware doesn't work you find something that works. If your system is messed up
and you can't fix it you re-format and start over or get someone else to do it
if you can't. When it is fixed you know that it will break again, but seem to be
patient when it does.

Because Linux is unfamiliar and people who try to help are not in your immediate
circle then you are more tempted to blame the OS and think that the OS isn't
good because you encountred a problem that is not obvious to you. If this
happens more than once or twice you are tempted to give up, wondering what you
have got yourself into. Most of us have been there at some point. There is light
at the end of the tunnel.

If you have returned to Windows take stock of the situation. Watch for how much
productivity you lose when you do incessant re-boots and maintenance. Watch for
how much time you are devoting to other OS-related issues instead of doing what
you really want to do. Look at the menu and the system tray and how they are
structured and how quickly they become full and disorganized. Watch for how your
system slows down over time and the hourglass as you are waiting for something.
Remember these frustrations and then think of giving Linux another shot.

Linux is a big world. Ubuntu is only one of hundreds of distros. It may not be
the distro for you. There are easier ones to learn and there are harder ones. It
is in the middle of the pack. If you decide to get back on the horse, consider
using one that is more user friendly such as SimplyMEPIS 8, Mint, Mandriva or
PCLOS. What Ubuntu does offer is the largest community and the biggest
repositories. Once you get your feet wet with another distro then perhaps you
will give it another try.

There are distros out there that test my ability and patience such as Arch or
Gentoo. Everyone can say the same thing. Each distro has its niche. You may have
just started with the distro that tested yours.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being GUI-only oriented, and for
some Linux/UNIX variants it's the only way if you want to retain what
hair you may have left. :-)

Though I've been using Linux/UNIX for a long time, there is one system
that baffled me: AIX (from IBM). About the only command-line commands
it shares with everything else is "ls", "exit" and "date". :-) Then I
"found" smit, its GUI. Kinda neat, and it displays the command-line
commands and args it invokes in its lower window pane as a learning
aid and as confirmation of what it's about to do.

I haven't looked at any of the "Linux for Dummies" or similar books
(so maybe this has already been addressed), but what I believe is
required is an online hands-on tutorial to get newcomers up to speed
with Linux without any hassle.

Such a tutorial program "could" be the defining app. Just a though.

Oddly, one friend of a friend who was previously a Windows guy found
PCLOS on his eeePC to the the bee's knees and now he's a convert. So
what is he doing with his system that literally worked out of the box?

He writes articles while in coffee shops, handles email, surfs the
web, and seldom prints.

For him, rapid bootup and shutdown and WiFi were the defining issues.

Examining the past several weeks' articles here in ubuntulinux seems
to indicate WiFi is still "troublesome", so he would not be pleased.

What it looks like that Linux must become is a commodity for it to be
accepted by "the great unwashed". It has to be as easy and intuitive
to use as, say, a toaster, microwave, car, TV, etc.

It's not there yet, but the opportunity still exists for it to beat
Windows PCs and Macs to that goal. If I had the investment capital,
that's the approach I'd take.

Linux must also either be stable and/or perform updates silently and
unobtrusively -- even I'm ticked at times when I fire up a system to
do something and then, seconds later, am alerted there are 60MB of
bug fixes, security fixes, and enhancements that need to be installed
which delays me getting work done.

The Xandros that comes with the eeePC is made so that it is simple to use, but I
find that it loses its appeal rapidly. Everything works as advertised, but you
are locked in to their way of doing things and their repositories are so
outdated that it isn't worth adding anyithing new. I switched mine to Advanced
Mode which is just KDE instead of IceWM with tabs. I keep it around because it
does work as you say in all situations. But for fun I have several other distros
on SD cards, including Ubunut 8.04 and 8.10. Both work extremely well, but
hibernation does not work at all and I don't care to fix it because it gets hot
enough that I just want to shut it off after awhile.

Xandros? The guy was very clear that it was PCLOS that came with his
eeePC. I hadn't even heard of PCLOS before that, so I downloaded the
distro and installed it on one system to see what it was like. Not bad
and the 3D-Mahjongg was fun, but I didn't see anything else about it
that was of interest to me. I can still boot it up but I'll blow it
away when I need another distro to run on that hardware (an old Dell
Latitude C600 laptop).

Checking back in my email, here's what he wrote back in March:

" Anyway, I like my Eee PC the way it is, running Linux. The "easy"
" mode designed into the system is, by far, the easiest system to use
" that I have ever seen. Anyone who has ever used a computer for
" more than a couple hours can start right out doing just about
" anything they wish on the Linux based Eee PC with no problems.
" Not so with XP, unless you have already used it.

and a few weeks earlier:

" Thanks to Scott, a fix was suggested: PCLinuxOS. As near as I can
" tell, this version of Linux looks and runs a lot like Windows, but
" without the Microsoft intrusions and rules. Also, Microsoft
" products, like Word, will run with PCLinuxOS. Better yet is the
" price: free.
" [...]
" By the way, I have the little Eee PC notebook computer which also
" runs Lunix. That was up and running 15 minutes after I got it home!
" Everything works perfectly and there was really nothing to learn.
" As soon as I hooked it to the Comcast modem, I was on line. The
" PCLinuxOS system isn't quite that easy, but almost.

I wonder if he meant OpenOffice (re: "... like Word")?

Double hmmm, looks like he installed PCLOS over whatever came with
the eeePC.

PCLOS translates to PC Linux Operating System.

I didn't know that eeePC came with Xandros.
It is strange. eeePC has the same wifi card as my Acer, but I couldn't get
my wifi with Xandros.

The eeePC uses Xandros Linux with IceWM desktop with a tabbed interface. If you
add two KDE files, kicker and ksmserver, then you can use KDe instead. This
isn't easy to do unless you know enough to open the terminal and load Synaptic
which is the only way to run Synaptic which is installed but not otherwise
available to the user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASUS_Eee_PC (see table at bottom for OSes
available)

Unfortunately ASUS has gone over to the darkside and is peddling Windows
versions and is not even offering Linux in some countries and many of these are
Linux bastions making the eeePC the vanguard for M$. Sadly I regret buying mine
for this reason only. It is a great little machine.

The eeePC can run PCLOS minime, but it does not work as well as the Xandros that
comes with it. There was a PCLOS version made for the eeePC, but the maintainer
was shipped to Iraq and it is no longer active. If your friend was running PCLOS
then it did not come with the machine.

Steven Vaughan-Nichols, former Ziff Davis editor at large and now Linux blogger
and writer, has said that Xandros is the largest distro by virtue of eeePC sales
alone which have gone through the roof. This is optimistic however as many users
like me replace Xandros with another OS, but his point is well taken as Xandros,
now flush with cash, has since bought Linspire.

There are several different versions of the eeePC and each has a different wifi
adapter, all Atheros. The Xandros on the eeePC is a highly tailored version of
Xandros with specific eeePC modules. Mine is the 900 and if I install 701
modules it messes up my system. The 901 uses a different processor and it has
its own modules that won't work on my 900. It sounds confusing, but suffice it
to say that Xandros makes modules for all of the models, most of which won't
work with another eeePC. When you remove modules for the eeePC you can install
Xandros 4.0 and if you try to add Xandros 4.0 it will replace some of the
modules.

The solution is to stick with modules for your machine and add the two files
that make it Xandros with KDE. This gives you the ability to switch between the
Easy mode (IceWM) and Advanced mode (KDE).

When you add another OS such as Ubuntu it usually detects the wifi and installs
the drivers in the Administration | Hardware drivers menu item. The camera works
in Ubuntu and the hotkeys work. You can add a module called eeeApplet in the
8.10 repositories that allows you to overclock and control the fan plus turn on
or off wlan, camera and card reader.

I used ndiswrapper at first but now there is a proprietary driver. As for
Xandros, I would not use it as long as Ubuntu is available. However Xandros on
the eeePC boots in 20 seconds, almost instant on. This is good if all you are
doing is using the web.

I write for fun.

Your experience with 7.04 and 7.10 reveals how Linux is constantly playing
catchup with M$ due to the cozy relationship with OEMs and not because Windows
is better than Linux in managing hardware device.

I great testimonial for why you use Ubuntu. I enjoyed reading it.