Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: SAJChurchey on 30 September 2003, 05:22
-
Microsoft, Lindows scrap over claims site (http://)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Why is it that everyone hates Lindows?
Because it's proprietary.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://)
[ September 30, 2003: Message edited by: SAJChurchey ]
-
This just in: Michael Robertson's reply to Gates:
http://www.lindows.com/lindows_news_pressreleases_archives.php?id=72 (http://www.lindows.com/lindows_news_pressreleases_archives.php?id=72)
Stick it to 'em Mikey.
-
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 ]
-
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
-
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).
-
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 ]
-
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)
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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..
-
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 (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/question20.htm)
http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question7.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.
-
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.
-
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.