Duck, Microsoft: Firefox Is Coming To Retail Stores (Linux offering OpenOffice & Firefox together)

TechWeb ^ | November 22, 2004 | TechWeb.com

[Eagle9]

Linux operating-system producer Linspire Inc. has found another way to challenge Microsoft: it's offering its OpenOffice.org product suite and the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox browser in a single package in retail channels.

Linspire, formerly called Lindows, positions its OOoFf package to directly compete with Microsoft Office. The OpenOffice.org product enables users to create spreadsheets, presentations, and documents using files in popular formats, including .doc, .xls and .ppt. The Linspire product also enables users to utilize the PDF format.

"Our goal with OOoFf is to help get OpenOffice.org and Firefox into every possible distribution channel," said Linspire CEO Michael Robertson in a statement Monday. "As users grow comfortable with these high-quality open-source products, it makes the migration to desktop Linux a much more practical transition."

The combo OOoFf consists of an installation CD-ROM, documentation materials, and Flash tutorials. The software is compatible with Windows 98 and higher and Mac OS X 10.2 and higher.

Firefox has been downloaded by more than 10 million users, and the browser has taken some market share from Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The Linspire Linux-based operating system has been designed for desktop and laptop computers, and the firm said the new Firefox- OOoFf package should help spur the growth of its Linux operating system.

[Paridel]

often explorer would say that a web site wasn't available. trying again, it would work.

Only a guess... but sometimes I've seen this happen to computers were ad/malware was present. There are some really good posts here on freerepublic is you search a bit for adware, or you could look here for a start:

Arstechnica - Spyware removal
Spywarewarrior

There may be better links out there, but that's good for start.

-paridel

[Terabitten]

I switched to Firefox about two months ago.. nary a popup since.

[N3WBI3]

1. There are a lot of image programs with batch modes, and you can throw in other options while you are at it (color correction, etc)

So you buy windows so that you can get other programs to do what you might need. So I have an old album of gifs I want to convert, I have to go out and buy something to do it?

2. You could do it pretty trivially with a batch file.

Because if the Linux command line is too much for a user, they will have no problem writing windows batch scripts (/sarcasm)

3. You could write a little Perl script (with Image::Magick or similar). - My preferred method cause the result works (if you are careful) with Linux & Windows.

Again, this requires you are able to write a perl script, if you can do this you are smart enough to Gnome...

The point of the OP was the the GUI more often than not makes things difficult, faster maybe, shorter learning curve probably, but in the end more of a pain..

[ctdonath2]

Yup. Free too.

[whd23]

Sure, but what does that have to do with Windows/Linux debate? You could have written that in Perl instead of bash shell commands, grep, awk, and sed. (can also get bash/awk/sed/grep for windows, but Perl would probably be easier to maintain and cross platform). Doesn't have to have a GUI to run in Windows and doesn't have to use a CLI to be Linux.

Your confusion comes from not having followed the thread closely. The segment of the thread that I was replying to was discussing Windows/GUI:

"you know why people don't use command lines because command lines were developed when there wasn't a GUI.
the whole idea of GUI is so you don't have to type extra stuff in."

I wasn't taking sides in the Windows/Linux debate, just illustrating the point that the command-line can often times be the better choice.

[Paridel]

A friend and I did an experement about 3 mos ago where we took two systems, installed a fresh version of Windows XP (Scv Pk 1) and installed no programs on either, except for Firefox.

Your experiment is BOGUS. SP1 came out, what, beginning of September 2002 I think? I'll wager that you weren't using a two year old copy of firefox?

I can't image anyone in their right mind would use Windows sans all security updates in the past two years. Two year old Linux installs have security issues as well (to name one? The SSH Remote Buffer Overflow Vulnerability announced ~ Sept 2003). A lot of these are very well known now, with example code published in security journals, and exploring them is fairly trivial.

Besides a more realistic test would be IE with a tool like EMS Free Surfer MKII (to block pop-ups) installed, and heck I would also throw in SpywareBlaster (to prevent known spyware registry entries) or SpyBot's TeaTimer because they are free and easily installed just like Firefox. Why? Because this isn't about being "fair" it is real world browsing experiences with both browsers. If you intentionally ignore easy steps you can take to make things more secure your test no longer reflects real usage.

-paridel

[Paul_B]

Good to hear. Nothing too close to me but I'll bear it in mind.

[ken21]

thanks.

yeah, i downloaded a spy ware and pop-up blocker that i saw here.

the weird thing is that when i clear my history, cookies, etc., the posts on fr still stay red, they don't go back to blue.

[Knitebane]

So, in order to make it fair, you have to add on a bunch of stuff, is that it?

Not that it really matters since even with all of the current patches, there are still 24 unpatched Internet Explorer bugs.

It's not about whether it's easy or not. It's not about whether it's free or not.

It's about whether Microsoft (not third-party vendors) have produced a product that works properly out of the box.

And the answer is no.

[N3WBI3]

Your first point (updates) is 100% valid, I am interested in the level of patching he did. As the ie and ff Operating Systems were both *as* vulnerable this was not a windows/Linux test he should have just patched ie. I dont quite agree with other ways you would make this 'fair'..

Besides a more realistic test would be IE with a tool like EMS Free Surfer MKII (to block pop-ups) installed, and heck I would also throw in SpywareBlaster (to prevent known spyware registry entries) or SpyBot's TeaTimer because they are free and easily installed just like Firefox.

Well it would not be a straight up test of IE vs FireFox then would it? No no for Ie To compete 'in a realistic test' you have to install two maybe three pieces of other software (of which how much is included with windows or free?).

If you intentionally ignore easy steps you can take to make things more secure your test no longer reflects real usage.

Like buying more 3rd party software to protect you from the crap MS give you..

[Space Wrangler]

Let me add that it was Service pack 1, with all the latest updates from MS Windows update web site. Just for giggles, we're going to do the same thing again with the latest Service pack from MS installed and ready to go. I'll post here when we're done. And I don't know how old the FIrefox version was at the time, as I don't know the release date, but it was .08, and the latest version is 1.0. But with all Windows updates installed, IE still gets tons more instances of spyware than Firefox. This I know for a fact, because before I removed all references to IE on our work computers, I could do a spyware check, and tell with 100% accuracy which browser that user ran. IE's time is coming to a close.

[Chemist_Geek]

Please show me the post calling this person a luser and deals them out abuse...

Please look at this post and its replies.

[ShadowAce]

OK. I read that post and its two replies. It seems to me that this statement:
The core philosophy of Linux is to make things as difficult as possible. It's so flexible that it can't get anything done.

was the inflammatory one. If you had mentioned you were having troubles, and simply asked for assistance, it would have been given graciously. Instead, you flamed Linux, installed Windows, then complained about it.

And then you expect niceties?

[Paridel]

So I have an old album of gifs I want to convert, I have to go out and buy something to do it?

No. About 10 seconds of searching popped up the first of I'm sure an almost infinite amount of free GUI based windows batch files converters: Easy Graphic Converter (note, I know nothing about this program, only trying to prove a point)

Because if the Linux command line is too much for a user, they will have no problem writing windows batch scripts (/sarcasm)

My point was that if you want CLI you can do it in Windows as well.

Again, this requires you are able to write a perl script, if you can do this you are smart enough to Gnome...

I have no idea what that means exactly. However Perl is just as easy as scripting in bash or any other command line language. And it is cross platform and free.

Let's just go over this really quick. You used the "convert" program, this is included with the ImageMagick package, available for both Linux and Windows. This is your example script in Linux:

for img in `ls *.jpg`; do convert $img $img-.gif; done

And in windows (might be a little off, I'm rusty on batch files, but close):

for %%f in (*.jpg) do convert %%f %%f-.gif

My goodness, they are almost the same!

Then perl, img_conv.pl:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use Image::Magick; use strict;
my $new_suffix = pop(@ARGV);
foreach my $image_file (@ARGV){
my $image = Image::Magick->new();
$image -> Read($_);
$image_file =~ s/\.[^.]+$/.$new_suffix/;
$image->Write($image_file);
}

Except the Perl program takes file.jpg and makes file.gif, not file.jpg-gif, is saved an a file and can be executed at a later date, and can be easily made to do something more complex, like converting all files in subdirectories as well. AND works with linux and windows.

-paridel

[N3WBI3]

Wow you flamed Linux and did not get nice reply's? Where as someone who asked a question was given helpful advice, pointers, and links to software....

Hmmm will wonders never cease

[Paridel]

I wasn't taking sides in the Windows/Linux debate, just illustrating the point that the command-line can often times be the better choice.
I apologize if that isn't what you meant, but I was following the thread and I will explain my thought process, if only to show that I wasn't being too careless. Either way I agree, the command line interface (CLI) is powerful and often preferable to a GUI.

The parent posters: explodingspleen in #53:
In windows, you would be clicking 5000 times.
In linux, you would just do for img in `ls *.jpg`

and ideablitz in #66:
Windows/GUI, you go to the application, select all the images, right click, select convert.

Clearly both seem to associate GUI /w Windows and CMI /w Linux.

This line of yours made me think you did the same:
How do you use what comes with Windoze to convert each one without having to click on each file in turn?

Technically speaking ImageMagick doesn't come with a base install of Linux, although many vendors include it. It is available as a free download for Windows, and if you see my post #134 below I explain exactly how you would do so for both operating system (allowing for that one free download).

-paridel

[Doohickey]

I disagree with the poster you replied to as well, but in the interest of having all the facts out you can configure IE to be every bit as effective at blocking popups as Firfox (both of which I use, by the way).

For general popups, you can use the integrated popup blocker in XPSP-2. I prefer the blocker in the Google toolbar, available for free download. You can also NOT install Shockwave to eliminate those types of popups. IE can also be configured to block all cookies.

[Paridel]

At least it wasn't uninformed flaming. It was after probably several hours of work attempting to make Linux work.

Sometimes I wonder how many new users install Linux and have everything work off the bat. I can do that now, but I'm pretty intimate with the system and typically configure and build my own kernel, not something I expect the average user to handle.

The point is that if I had spent all that time looking at books and trying to get the thing to work, I would have said something a little harsher. A more correct response would be points to help in case the poster wanted to try again in the future, not a belittling for being to dumb to get it to work.

-paridel

[N3WBI3]

For general popups, you can use the integrated popup blocker in XPSP-2

For youse of you on 2K tuff huh? Also XPSP2 broke my usermanager for windows domains.

[N3WBI3]

At least it wasn't uninformed flaming. It was after probably several hours of work attempting to make Linux work.

It was totally uninformed flaming. You were using *IPCONFIG* I want to know what book told you to use ipconfig.

Sometimes I wonder how many new users install Linux and have everything work off the bat. I can do that now, but I'm pretty intimate with the system and typically configure and build my own kernel, not something I expect the average user to handle.

Im happy that youre l33t enough to build your own Kernel but I never have to do that on a desktop system. Once in a great while on a server but even there generally I use RPM updates to do the kernel. As for 'everything' working that kinda depends on what everything is right?

A more correct response would be points to help in case the poster wanted to try again in the future, not a belittling for being to dumb to get it to work.

Again, he could have come on and said I cant get Linux to work because my monitor is off and I would not have flamed him. He could have said, help Ive been working on this for hours and I cant get fire fox installed and he would have gotten four or five post saying try this. Even with his post he got three things to try (yes there was attitude but no more than he provided with his 'question')

He started by saying you people suck, now help me. If I start a thread by saying "windows blows, its a gay os and the people who use it love a broken system. BTW I cant get usermanager to work after XPSP 2 please help." I would expect some nice comments thrown my way.