Splashtop, Linux For Windows

[lxskllr]

This looks pretty cool for some of you. You can install it in Windows, and it lets you boot to a web O/S in a fraction of the time it takes to boot Windows. Useful for checking mail, or websites when you don't need a full O/S.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...ows-users/8379


Edit:
critical grammar

[Guest]

Yeah, got that on my laptop under the 'Web' button. Cool if you just want to look at something on the net quickly without booting Windows.

Parents aren't happy with it though by all accounts as it bypasses any blocking software they've loaded into Windows (obviously)

[badlands]

Yea this is cool, fast and simple. Lots of linux haters commenting in the comment section of that page. Probably typed them from their Androids I wish Damn Small Linux was still being updated. DSL was awesome for an entire linux system to run embedded.

[lxskllr]

DSL is amazing. It's a surprisingly functional O/S for something that fits in a 50mb image. Everyone should download it just to see what can be done with almost no resources :^)

I didn't know the project had virtually stopped. I read a couple threads in their forums, and the one co dev is a real douchebag. He split to form TinyCore, but the way he split was beyond lame. He was still getting paid to work on DSL, but wasn't working on that, but his own project :^S

[badlands]

yea i read about that, twas unfortunate. dsl worked so fast on old computers i decided to do a hard drive install on a decent computer and ran it for several months. to date i have yet to see a faster more responsive os.

[SmokedEuro]

I have a hp mini 210 with this splash top factory installed. I don't think I have ever used it. I used to use ubuntu on my desktop but due to my significant others Linux ignorance I had to go back to windows. Which sucks because my pc is ancient and windows kills it. I tried dual booting but for some reason i gave up on that. I don't remember why though. Actually I think I am going to try again. I know I didn't have any issues doing it and it worked well. I think I am going to try something besides ubuntu though. Any good distros?

[lxskllr]

I think I am going to try something besides ubuntu though. Any good distros?

I'm partial to Ubuntu, and Debian based distros. What is it you didn't like about Ubuntu, or do you just want something different for something different? For something very light, but not as spartan as DSL, Puppy is a good choice. They have decent packages, and it looks very good for the resources it uses. PCLinuxOS is pretty popular, but I haven't tried that for some reason. That might be my project today. Put that on a flash drive, and see what it's about. Mandriva is nice, but it uses KDE by default, and the project has an uncertain future. It's certainly worth trying. OpenSuSE I think would be too fat for that machine, but maybe not. That's the Win7 of Linux. Great looking O/S, with lots of features, but the heaviest that I'm familiar with. I haven't tried it in years though, and may not be as heavy as I remember. It's worth a try since it's free to do.

[snupy]

I'm partial to Ubuntu,

Ewww!

and Debian based distros.

Debian=Nirvana

What is it you didn't like about Ubuntu,

'Buntus are buggy as hell.

For something very light, but not as spartan as DSL, Puppy is a good choice.

What is wrong with Debian Squeeze with Openbox and fbpanel? Toss in some light apps like Xarchiver, Chromium browser, transmission, Abiword, Gnumeric, pcmanfm and gpicview, and you can have a VERY light, yet very COMPLETE system. Hell, I run this setup on a 2.2 Ghz single core 64 bit processor, but use powersavd to cut cpu speed to only 1000Mhz and STILL this damn thing FLIES!

[lxskllr]

'Buntus are buggy as hell.

Not really, at least not anymore than other distros that use cutting edge features. Ubuntu's basically Debian with extra stuff added.

What is wrong with Debian Squeeze with Openbox and fbpanel? Toss in some light apps like Xarchiver, Chromium browser, transmission, Abiword, Gnumeric, pcmanfm and gpicview, and you can have a VERY light, yet very COMPLETE system. Hell, I run this setup on a 2.2 Ghz single core 64 bit processor, but use powersavd to cut cpu speed to only 1000Mhz and STILL this damn thing FLIES!

Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't as plug/play as some of the other distros. Gnome isn't as heavy as people make it out to be. It's the extra stuff that causes weight. I'm using the full Gnome desktop on a CeleronM 900mhz with 1gb ram, and it runs fine. Most of the weight comes from Firefox and LibreOffice. I could change them, but I like their features, and the mild slowdown isn't enough to worry about.

[devilock76]

DSL was cool. For a replacement to that consider looking at Puppy Linux. For another very fast boot distro consider Arch, which can be as light as you build it. Fedora has also made remarkable improvements, although still a larger distro it now fits on a CD again and Fedora 14 on both my netbook and full laptop boots in about 20 seconds which was a stated goal I think around Fedora 12.

Back to Arch, Arch can be intimidating for a newbie to install, especially when setting up X windows on a laptop or wifi. On a wired desktop, depending if you use NVIDIA drivers no big deal but for a laptop or a newbie I would recommend Arch Band. It is very lightweigh but still Arch, however you get X windows and WIFI setup and can test in a live mode from the CD if your laptop will be compatible out the box. They use OpenBox and a very nice implementation of it as the included WM. Of course you can add on whatever you like but you still get the Arch spirit of things from Arch Bang without the lowest level of system setup DIY.

I will mention I use Fedora mostly now because I use CentOS onmy servers. CentOS however is a special headache for me because as a developer CentOS is way too far behind in the stable repos for many development tools, system is rock solid stable but will leave a developer wanting and delving into testing repos (not always wise for a server. An example of that would be PHP 5.2 can only be gotten from the testing repos (this will change when CentOS 6 is released as stable).

One of the things I have been debating is switching to FreeBSD for many of my machines. My only qualm with FreeBSD is that only the OSE version of VirtualBox works on it, Fedora and CentOS can support version 4.0 which allows things like virtualizing OS X as well as setting up RDP connections to running virtualized machines vie VirtualBox. If I end up adding an Imac to the stable this might become a moot point. Part of what I use my home server for is a virtualized OS server to provide the family with any OS they need from any computer.

Anyway FreeBSD shares that Arch way of doing things and can be remarkably fast (Arch still boots quicker from my tests) but it has a much higher stability factor (Arch should not be used for a production server). FreeBSD is also great for running a Jail Server that is serving as a VPS for multiple mini FreeBSD web servers. It is the best virtualization system performance wise for that type of setup. FreeBSD has a huge library of ports, but if you choose the port method for installation and updates it can be time consuming. Many consider that time consumption worth while though and just start it running over night.

Probably wandered all around and off the topic. But I am a junky for *nix threads.

Ken

[lxskllr]

I wouldn't recommend Arch for anyone other than playing in a sandbox. Here's a post I made in another forum...

A reader of my blog recently made a comment about Arch’s lack of package signing, and this got me looking into the issue more carefully. What I found has left me deeply concerned with a number of aspects of Arch

http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2011/...-notso-secret/

I was considering playing around with this distro, but this is a deal breaker. One of the biggest benefits of Linux is security, and if that's undermined at the foundation, why bother?

[devilock76]

Not really, at least not anymore than other distros that use cutting edge features. Ubuntu's basically Debian with extra stuff added.

Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't as plug/play as some of the other distros. Gnome isn't as heavy as people make it out to be. It's the extra stuff that causes weight. I'm using the full Gnome desktop on a CeleronM 900mhz with 1gb ram, and it runs fine. Most of the weight comes from Firefox and LibreOffice. I could change them, but I like their features, and the mild slowdown isn't enough to worry about.

I have found Ubuntu's to be buggy, but usually that comes from mid level to advanced users delving outside the ubunut mold. Ubuntu has made huge leaps and bounds being a good every type of machine install for Newbie users. I can think of no other distro that is as user friendly for the first time linux user to get their feet wet. Fedora is close but there are numerous things that should be done following a Fedora install that would be a hassle to new users and although it is close and a great new user distro it is not as new user friendly on the install and initial configuration. Fedora is more secure right after a fresh install than Ubuntu but most of that is due to SELinux which a desktop user, especially on older hardware would want to disable (with a properly setup iptables enabled though).

I may not use ubuntu personally as much as I used to but I will still keep my eyes on it because it is a useful distro particularly for installing for non-technical users. PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, and OpenSUSE are the only other distros that come close but of all of those I find Ubuntu tends to still have the best combination of performance (especially on older machines), GUI config tools and application selection (combined with Synaptic for ease of installation and finding packages). OpenSUSE is a great choice though for YAST for power users who are not technical.

Ken

[snupy]

One of the biggest benefits of Linux is security, and if that's undermined at the foundation, why bother?

Agreed!

[snupy]

Not really, at least not anymore than other distros that use cutting edge features.

That is part of the problem for me. I prefer stability over cutting edge. Although, since the Buntus are now building off of Testing instead of Unstable, it may have changed since I last fooled around with it.

[snupy]

I have found Ubuntu's to be buggy, but usually that comes from mid level to advanced users delving outside the ubunut mold. Ubuntu has made huge leaps and bounds being a good every type of machine install for Newbie users.

Debian installs are just as easy these days. Also, how something installs tells me nothing. How well the install holds up over time, especially with updates, is what matters most to me.