Lindows and M$ are at it Again

[SAJChurchey]

This just in:  Michael Robertson's reply to Gates:

http://www.lindows.com/lindows_news_pressreleases_archives.php?id=72

Stick it to 'em Mikey.

[flap]

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying:

 

quote:Free software is the idea that the source code must be open and that anybody can obtain it and modify it to their needs/wants. That doesn't mean you can't charge for it.

Exactly, free software is software you can modify, redistribute and sell/re-sell. You can't do that with Yast (the licence doesn't permit it) so it's not free software. I wasn't criticising Suse for selling their software, I was criticising them for distributing Non-Free (as in freedom) software.

Also, the title of your page "Join the Open Source Movement-Support Free Software" suggests you don't realise that Open Source and Free Software are not the same thing. Read the link in my sig.

[ September 30, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]

[mc0282]

i give a shit, what you people hate lindows?, i don't understand now we have a company has BALLS to go against microsoft showing the world how greedy this company is, now i am reading  "i hate lindows" or" lindows sucks" come on people. be happy at least microsoft is losing there grip on the market.. we might see different flavors in the future.. oh you just want old window controlling the market. i be honest i don't just want linux every freakin box, i want different flavors , like i said before..
geez

[SAJChurchey]

quote:
the title of your page "Join the Open Source
Movement-Support Free Software" suggests you don't realise that Open Source and Free Software are not the same thing.

Sorry, that you misread, but that's exactly what I meant.  I was using them as synonyms so that people would realize that those two terms are used for the same thing.  I'm pretty sure that there is an adquate explanation of what "free software" is in the actual reading.

 

quote:
we have a company has BALLS to go against microsoft showing the world how greedy this company

Actually, Lindows doesn't exactly have "BALLS,"  Michael Robertson just has a lot of money to throw around slapping M$ in the face.  Remember the XBox hacking contest he funded.  It was more or less there just to piss M$ off.  Lindows is not altruistic at all, they're just as greedy as M$ w/ wanting to own everything, including open source software.  Which as I said earlier, the reason they dropped their WINE development was b/c they couldn't own it and make significant figures off of it.  It wasn't profitable to them.  Open-source is NOT about corporate ownership, and any company looking to enter the distribution business should realize that.  Open source is not about profits. it's about making quality software through an open community.

Therefore, I think the ideology that Lindows started on was bad.  Just b/c they go up against M$ b/c they have money, doesn't make them a good corporation to take it's place (as if they ever would).

[flap]

quote:I was using them as synonyms so that people would realize that those two terms are used for the same thing.

Does that mean you believe they are synonymous, or that you're pointing to the fact that the two terms are often incorrectly used to refer to the same thing?

[ September 30, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by mc0282:
i give a shit, what you people hate lindows?, i don't understand now we have a company has BALLS to go against microsoft showing the world how greedy this company is, now i am reading  "i hate lindows" or" lindows sucks" come on people. be happy at least microsoft is losing there grip on the market.. we might see different flavors in the future.. oh you just want old window controlling the market. i be honest i don't just want linux every freakin box, i want different flavors , like i said before..
geez

listen to me, i am sick of pointing this out.

lindows are more harmful to linux and open source software than MS will ever be. why? because their product sucks and it costs a shitload.

people will try lindows and they will know it sucks. read a review of lindows, the best ones say "needs improvement, it's inconsistent" etc, and i won't go into what the worst ones say.

you know the only people who will try lindows will be those who use windows already (and they have used windows for years) so firstly, it won't get a fair trial, and secondly when those people see how shit lindows is (and how insecure, slow etc) they'll say for years that they tried linux and it sucked. Those people will never try a real linux and it will all be lindows' fault, but why should they care? they got their $129 out of it...

what makes melaugh is those idiots would rather get an illegal bootleg download of lindows than a legitimate free download of red hat or slackware!

now you see why lindows is pissing me off? linux is coming of age and there's a time limit on how long it will be before people stop waiting for linux to come up with the goods (mature choice of dedicated apps and support for existing winhardware and so forth, not to mention idiot proof configuration tools and a uniform set of icons and toolbars (yes that's important for a huge number of the users out there)), and if linux doesn't rise to the challenge and seize people's minds as well as their hearts, then it will be a marginalised system for ever, truly relegated to the server market (which is actually becoming more windows oriented anyway so some sources would have us believe)

[Laukev7]

You may dislike their software, but I think they have good intentions (although the road to Hell is paved with them). It's not like they are being monopolists or anything. There are loads of shitty Linux distros out there; it's just that Lindows actually advertise their product, unlike the others. If Michael Robertson were actively trying to undermine the Linux community, that would be different, but since they are not, let's be fair with him. A company isn't evil (unrecommendable, perhaps, but not evil) just because it sells low quality products (or because they sell them, period, rather than giving away).

[ September 30, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[SAJChurchey]

Good explaination Calum.

 

quote:
Michael Robertson were actively trying to undermine the Linux community, that would be different

Lindows isn't even a part of the Linux community.  They've taken the software that has already been made and just redistribute.  I've never heard of a Lindows developer submitting patches or even participating in the open source community, which is a collaborative effort.  All Lindows does is take the free stuff, try to make money off of it and never give back.  At least other distros' developers actually participate.  This is pretty much the same thing as undermining the system.

Of course they don't have a monopoly, but I'm pretty sure if they were given the chance they would take one.

[mc0282]

Calum i have to agree with you on the lindows suck as an OS.. but  i have been wishing  for company to beat the fuck out of microsoft already or even better blow them up.. but like i said before i just don't want linux to be the only OS, i want other OS to popup..

Calum thank you for pointing out for me little detail about lindows, i never like it..

[Laukev7]

quote: I've never heard of a Lindows developer submitting patches or even participating in the open source community, which is a collaborative effort.

But they do provide monetary support.

http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question4.htm

 

quote: All Lindows does is take the free stuff, try to make money off of it and never give back.

http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question20.htm

http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question7.htm

If you would just read what Michael has to say, you'll find that he offers straightforward answers to most questions from the Linux community. He's been interviewed once by Slashdot, and I find him
quite honest, from the answers he gave.

[solarismka]

Hmmmm,  I can see how lindows is a danger.  I mean, I can see 'joe shmoe' using it. m Realizing how much more 'expensive' it is.  How less secure it is, because its running as root and a normal user probably doesn't know that, thus the introduction of virii and worms and incomaptibility with some of their previous software, well not really too sure on that one.

So with all of this in the play, a troll is born with windows in his/her mind bing the best and linux sux because lindows sux... and the beat goes on....

I don't know too much about the CEO though as far as people hating him.  He is quite entertaing.  Certinly better than all those reality shows on FOX Networks.

But people day Theo De'ratt(sp?) is an ass to.  Just that OpenBSD really is a fine product.

[SAJChurchey]

quote:
But they do provide monetary support.

I will give you that one.  It does appear that they support the open-source community, but I'm not sure if you can fully trust them as a company.  We of all people should know to watch out for ambitious corporations.  I mean look at M$ in the 80s, look at their business strategy, and look at them now.  Not to mention the robber barons at the turn of the century.  The consumer just cannot trust Big Business b/c their motivation is not the consumers but profits, even at the expense of the consumer.  So don't go trustin Micheal Robertson quite yet.  Only time will fully tell of their intentions.