Results 1 to 2 of 2
Should prolly investigate before I shoot my mouth off. I quickly loaded Linux-XP onto a neighbors PC today and did not have much time to dig deeper, so... what's up ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 04-30-2006 #1
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Texas, USA
Linux-XP for real?
1. Linux-XP partition tool would not load it on a disk with Wxp already installed. I have done all kinds of dual and triple boots on single and dual HDs with Wxp using mandrakes installer with no problems.
2. EULA reads like MS EULA.
3. Linux-XP may be installed on only one PC
4. You are allowed 99 boots - then you have to acquire a license
5. Could not find any Office Suite
Might be paranoid, but:
1. If I were MS, I would not want to risk letting anyone "bump" Wxp (out of sight out of mind) for Linux-XP by allowing a dual boot. I could not do it with the Linux-XP bootdisk ( did it with MDK 10.2 partitioner or cfdisk in SLack 10.10).
2. Would true opensource have that onerous of a EULA?
3. Sounds very familiar to you know who!
4. If I were MS, I would look long term and allow 99 boots for several reasons. I would realize that new third world markets (Russia, South America, China) would not support $130 Wxp, but WOULD support free use (99 reboots) for about 1 or 2 years, until the user became comfortable with or DATA dependent on it, then require a license. 1 or 2 years is NOTHING to wait for the potential return in a huge new market. If a reboot is required each time you dwnload software, then the 99 boots will go quickly.
5. Maybe there is an office suite, but if not....... do you have to pay for one that is compiled for this particular distro?
Apparently this emanates out of Russia. Isn't that one of the places MS is trying to saturate the market with their products. Even if after the 99 boots, they got $10 or $15 for the license, think of the returns in a place like Russia or China. Could this be a MS product made out to look like some mom'n'pop distro? Website indicates that images are copyright/trademark of their respective owners. Most people like to present their company name. Why would anyone be so vague about who the copyright owner is unless......
- 05-06-2006 #2
I think it's a legitimate linux distro, the name is just to make people feel more at home. And about the EULA and licences, when you think about it, corporate mentality is, well, corporate mentality, be it Micro$oft or a company which produces a Linux distro. Think about Mandriva, how it fired Gael Duval...
For anyone wondering what LinuxXP is, check here:
*Note that there is a joke also called Linux XP, but it is older than the distro: