Lindows and M$ are at it Again

[SAJChurchey]

Microsoft, Lindows scrap over claims site

I love it whenever Lindows and M$ face off.  That's the only thing good about Lindows is that the rich prick CEO always likes to slap Billy Boy in the face.  

It's like two little kids trying to prove who's got the biggest bank account.  

M$ is just pissy b/c Lindows is spreading the word that the citizens of CA can actually spend their vouchers on NON-M$ products.

[Laukev7]

Why is it that everyone hates Lindows? OK, I've asked a similar question before, and you informed me of not-so-good things about the OS, like the root account as default, but it looks more like you guys hate the company for what it is. To me, Michael Robertson comes across as an OK person, and Lindows as a start-up who sells an easy to use Linux.

[emh]

I kind of feel the same way.  I don't really have anything against Lindows (other than giving the user the option to be root all the time).  Personally, now that I've used Mandrake for a little over a year, I don't think I could really use Lindows, because I'm used to Mandrake.  However, I tend to think that with Lindows, at least it's that many people that aren't using Windows.  And Lindows could be a stepping stone to another distro.

[Doctor V]

I'll third the opinion.  I don't think there's a problem with the company Lindows itself.  I just think some of their claims about comatibility are exaggerated, and I don't think its a good OS for people who want Linux cause it takes away alot of what Linux is meant to be.

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Why is it that everyone hates Lindows?

Because it's proprietary.

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


Because it's proprietary.

Sun is proprietary and they're not hated to that extent just because of that. Besides, anyone can get the source for all GPL'ed Lindows binaries they received, in compliance to the licence.

[flap]

I think it's the fact that they're using a large body of free software to produce a system that ultimately isn't free. Like Suse.

[Laukev7]

SuSE isn't hated nearly as much as Lindows. To me it looks more like a free beer issue more than a free speech issue, and I find the hatred towards Lindows unfair. A lot of the scorn of the community is directed towards the CEO as well.

[SAJChurchey]

The only reason that Lindows is looked down upon is their business practices are using open source and at the same time taking advantage of the consumers.  For instance, the click-and-run library is a huge rip off, and it is the main way they make money...off selling open-source software for huge mark ups when a well educated consumer could download them for free elsewhere.

Second of all, Lindows never knew the meaning of open source.  The original plan for Lindows was going to be this huge Windows-Linux compatability project:  allowing Windows programs to run smoothly in Linux using WINE.  Finally, when Lindows got up and running and was working on their version of the WINE project, the GNU informed them that they wanted the changes they had made.  Ooops, forgot to read the GPL, and since they could not own it, they dropped their WINE project altogether.  

So all in all, Michael Robertson is an opportunist who saw the potential of open source, even though he didn't know what it meant, and jumped into the market making promises just so he could butt heads with Bill Gates, and then abandoning the one thing that the Lindows distro had going for it.  This is why Lindows is looked down upon.

 

quote:
A lot of the scorn of the community is directed towards the CEO as well

Lindows is his brainchild, and Lindows business practices come from him.  I don't actually scorn him; I'm quite entertained by him actually.  

 

quote:
I think it's the fact that they're using a large body of free software to produce a system that ultimately isn't free. Like Suse

I agree that taking ISOs off the web was a bad move on SuSE's part; however, you can still install it via FTP for free, and they do have a kick ass distro.  SuSE knows the open source game.

[flap]

quote:SuSE isn't hated nearly as much as Lindows.

As far as I'm aware SuSe isn't hated at all, unfortunately.

 

quote:I agree that taking ISOs off the web was a bad move on SuSE's part; however, you can still install it via FTP for free, and they do have a kick ass distro

I'm not talking about that - I have no objection to a distributor not putting their isos (or any of their distribution) online, as long as the software they distribute is Free. Yast is non-free (and is a fundamental part of what makes SuSe SuSe) so the distro is non-free.

[Laukev7]

quote: As far as I'm aware SuSe isn't hated at all, unfortunately.

Why unfortunately? Are you trying to dictate us whom we should and should not hate?

 

quote: Yast is non-free (and is a fundamental part of what makes SuSe SuSe) so the distro is non-free.

Only because it prohibits redistribution for a fee. It's open source, anyway, so it's not an issue.

 

quote: The YaST License
This is not a free software license. The license prohibits distribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to be included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold by companies and by organizations such as the FSF.  

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

[flap]

quote:Why unfortunately? Are you trying to dictate us whom we should and should not hate?

You seem to want that I should prefix all my opinions with "In my opinion..." rather than just assume that this caveat is automatically implied.

 

quote:Only because it prohibits redistribution for a fee. It's open source, anyway, so it's not an issue.

Exactly, it's open source, not free software. What isn't an issue?

[Laukev7]

quote: Exactly, it's open source, not free software. What isn't an issue?

So, you mean to say that you hate SuSE as a company, and think that everyone else should, because one part of their distro is only almost free, and not even closed?

 

quote: You seem to want that I should prefix all my opinions with "In my opinion..." rather than just assume that this caveat is automatically implied.

I'll leave your writing style at your discretion. But I find you do come across as someone who tries to impose his opinions.

[flap]

quote:So, you mean to say that you hate SuSE as a company, and think that everyone else should, because one part of their distro is only almost free, and not even closed?

Well in reality the only software company I actually *hate* is Microsoft, but I dislike any company that produces proprietary software. I don't *hate* SuSe myself and wouldn't really expect other people to, but I just think it would be a positive thing if people boycotted their distro in favour of a free one.

[SAJChurchey]

quote:
I just think it would be a positive thing if people boycotted their distro in favour of a free one

You seem to misunderstand the concept of free software.  Free software means that you're free to do what you want with it and share it w/ anybody you wish.  Even open-source programmers have to make money, so that's why a lot of businesses make money off of open source software.

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.  Worldwide, Red Hat, Inc. only netted $1 million this last quarter, not a real profit on a global scale by any means.

Read about the real ideology of free software before you go blasting distros:

http://sajchurchey.htmlplanet.com/opensrc

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