Slashdot Mirror

Pile of wank

Lindows kicks ass as a solution for desktop. Click n Run is just what is needed-Windows Update, minus the idiocy.

Red Hat Linux 8.0 is great-it comes with software that would be worth over $1000 if bought commercially. It's brilliant. I use it every day. A computer illiterate relative uses it great. It, also, kicks ass.

Lycoris is a mad combination of Red Hat and Lindows. All the apps you need with an XP interface.

Linux will smash the balls off of everything on the desktop. Just wait and see.

Not only would it further Lindows' pursuit of capturing the Linux end-user desktop market, it would also be yet another opportunity for him to get Lindows in the news. MS is already suing the company over their us of the name "Lindows"; this would allow him to pool resources with the XPde team and possibly really win big (not just the use of the word, but also the look & feel).

Of course, we'd also have to put up with another article with his mugshot in it. Why does he always do that?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/maney/2003-02-25-maney_x.htm

I think you're misinformed. The KDE 3.1 packages for Red Hat are here. Besides, isn't it possible that this guy might prefer GNOME over KDE, or is GNOME also "crippled"? Actually, I shouldn't have said that. This is just going to turn into another off-topic flame-fest. Regardless, I don't understand why you insist he run KDE. I'd prefer he make that choice for himself.

He will have to mess with different configuration tools in different places and that sucks. (Or can I set IP-adresses, screen resolution, firewall settings, desktop colors and wallpaper in the same config center in RedHat?)

Have you actually tried Red Hat Linux? You can find all the configuration options on the start menu. For instance, to change the desktop background, click start menu, Preferences, Background. To change the screen fonts, click start menu, Preferences, Fonts. Seems pretty easy and consistent to me. If you want all of the options within one application, you can run GNOME Control Center, also available in the Preferences menu. I believe Bluecurve has the same control center option in KDE, but if not, it seems like a pretty silly reason to throw out Red Hat. Are you saying the whole distro is worthless because the system settings are in the start menu instead of a control center? (Rhetorical question; I think I already know your answer.)

it is inconsistent with all other distros

Since when do all desktops have to be identical to each other? Lindows and Lycoris also run heavily modified versions of KDE; are they trash, too?

causes RedHat to lag behind in availability of packages

Lag behind? They come out with a new release every six months, and if that's not enough, you can get the unstable packages here.

and makes bugreports from RedHat users worthless

I don't see why. The configuration of the desktop is different, but the code is same. For instance, Red Hat did not re-write the KDE CD Player for Bluecurve. When a Red Hat user finds a bug in kscd, the bug will be in all other distributions, as well.

Since when do we cheer up unecessary forks?

Bluecurve is not a fork; it's a repackaging. What Red Hat has done with KDE is similar to what Galeon has done with Mozilla, or what Apple's Safari has done with Konqueror. They've added code and changed the look a lot, but the foundation is still there. Or does this mean you think Safari is crap, too? It sounds like you think it's okay for others to modify KDE, but Red Hat can't.

Debian is as inconsistent as RedHat but has other advantages (apt-get)

Hmm. You complained about Red Hat lagging behind in package availability, but from what I hear, Debian is far worse. How long did it take Debian to come out with KDE 3.0 packages?

so does Gentoo.

Gentoo!? I thought we were talking about distros for newbies.

*ALL* the prejudices that I hear...

That you "hear"? Don't judge a distro until you've actually tried it.

on RedHat you do have to compile KDE 3.1 on no other major distro you have to do that!

This is simply not true. You can get them from the Rawhide links I posted above, or you can get them here. Just because you can't get them from kde.org doesn't mean you have to compile them yourself.

RedHat is not ready for the desktop, Linux is.

Well, to each his own. I can see why KDE purists might have a problem with Red Hat Linux, but for Linux newbies, it's one of the better distros out there. I think dj_paulgibbs should try several different distros and pick the one he likes best, not the one that has "pure KDE".

Hey, I saw something like that once.

I thought that the Disney corporate logo was a stylized Disney signature?

That seems to be their current favorite logo, but I'm sure in the past some Disney products (like their cable TV channel) were identified by 3 circles forming a mouse head, with no text.

Characters are really a special case in trademarks.

Do you have any source on this? I sure don't.

Characters aren't copyrightable, they're trademarked.

Sure, characters are copyrightable. Everything is copyrightable, since 1987. Well, any visual or audible work is copyrighted, and that includes all the characters it contains. It was only recently that characters started becoming trademarks. The first big example I can recall is George Lucas), and that seems to have been more due to the fact that each character also represented a product (an "action-figure"). Their names represented a commericial product, and thus is an identifier for "trade".

Lets check with the USPTO to see if a movie character (who wasn't made into an action figure) is trademarked: Marty McFly. Nope, although his film was. The legal reason I can't publish a comic-book adventure with Marty and Doc Brown is not that they're trademarked, but because the film I saw them in is still copyrighted.

It'd be like trying to trademark 'Car' with regards to automobiles. That dog don't hunt.

What's that supposed to mean? Disney uses an image of Mickey Mouse (in a monochrome silloette) to identify themselves in some business dealings. This is a trademark, regarding many things beyond "cartoons with Mickey Mouse" (which is hardly a product they care about, anymore). If the character became PD, I could use it in original drawings and animations- just so long as I did not attempt to cause consumers to mistake me for the Walt Disney corporation.

I'm also allowed to make pictures of Apples or Windows- and I can even use them in a computer context. Just as long as I don't name my company that, or try to confuse the public, I'm safe. And the trademark-holders aren't threatened.

(Well, mega-corps can feel threatened at anything, and may fire off lawsuits at a whim, but by legal theory, it shouldn't bother them)

So what? The point is, legal documents in that case are going to be available in this one. In those legal documents is evidence of how generic the term windows is with regards to computer display systems.

Their website is deliberately designed to look like MS's marketing material, and is completely misleading as to what Lindows is, costs, and is capable of.

I don't buy that. The lindows site looks nothing like Microsoft.com or what windows.com resolves to. In fact if anything, it looks like they are ripping off Apple.

As for misleading, the big tab for 'lindows os' gives you a big fat price as the first text on the page, and says in the first paragraph

'LindowsOS is a new, fun and exciting operating system that delivers the power, stability and cost-savings of Linux with the ease of a windows environment.'

If you object to the use of 'windows environment,' you are proving the fact that Microsoft has tried to appropriate the word windows when it is obviously a generic term. It goes on to describe the product in terms you can hardly call deceptive.

IMHO, Lindows is a sleazy company. I've had enough of get-rich-quick startups and scams, and could give a crap who their in court with. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I hope the judge rules that Lindows is in fault, because they are seeking to deliberately trick consumers into buying their product.

Sleazy or not, lindows is not a scam. Regardless of whether you care about them, this case is of interest if for no other reason than to see if the government will let microsoft get away with trademarking a generic term. The enemy of your enemy might not be your friend, but if they bring down your enemy a bit, your enemy is still weaker.

And since when has tricking customers been illegal? In fact, I'd submit it is a mainstay of marketing, period (moral or not).

-Ted

So what? The point is, legal documents in that case are going to be available in this one. In those legal documents is evidence of how generic the term windows is with regards to computer display systems.

Their website is deliberately designed to look like MS's marketing material, and is completely misleading as to what Lindows is, costs, and is capable of.

I don't buy that. The lindows site looks nothing like Microsoft.com or what windows.com resolves to. In fact if anything, it looks like they are ripping off Apple.

As for misleading, the big tab for 'lindows os' gives you a big fat price as the first text on the page, and says in the first paragraph

'LindowsOS is a new, fun and exciting operating system that delivers the power, stability and cost-savings of Linux with the ease of a windows environment.'

If you object to the use of 'windows environment,' you are proving the fact that Microsoft has tried to appropriate the word windows when it is obviously a generic term. It goes on to describe the product in terms you can hardly call deceptive.

IMHO, Lindows is a sleazy company. I've had enough of get-rich-quick startups and scams, and could give a crap who their in court with. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I hope the judge rules that Lindows is in fault, because they are seeking to deliberately trick consumers into buying their product.

Sleazy or not, lindows is not a scam. Regardless of whether you care about them, this case is of interest if for no other reason than to see if the government will let microsoft get away with trademarking a generic term. The enemy of your enemy might not be your friend, but if they bring down your enemy a bit, your enemy is still weaker.

And since when has tricking customers been illegal? In fact, I'd submit it is a mainstay of marketing, period (moral or not).

-Ted

It's pretty obvious what is going on here. The Apple case was completely unrelated to Trademarks. What Lindows wants is further documentation showing that MS used the term "window" in a generic manner. They've already submitted evidence that others considered "windows" to be a generic term in the early 1980s. (See here)

IANAL, but don't you think that some of these would have been sued already if they had a copyright on Windows?

They also have a trademark, which they gained under very suspicious circumstances, on the word "Windows" when used to describe software. This is what is under discussion. Hence the recent change of Windows Commander (a file explorer for Windows) to Total Commander.

(The trademark circumstances are suspicious because the USPTO said they would never give out a trademark on "Windows" because it is a generic term for GUI's. However, later, when M$ had more power, M$ appealed and where given the trademark. The judge in the Microsoft v. Lindows.com case has redacted (i.e.: censored) (with black ink) the part [PDF] of the court papers where Lindows.com explains the reason that the trademark was given to M$ despite the earlier rulings that it was a generic term - a term can never lose its genericness. If you look very carefully, you will prbably be able to read a few words ;-).)

IANAL, but don't you think that some of these would have been sued already if they had a copyright on Windows?

They also have a trademark, which they gained under very suspicious circumstances, on the word "Windows" when used to describe software. This is what is under discussion. Hence the recent change of Windows Commander (a file explorer for Windows) to Total Commander.

(The trademark circumstances are suspicious because the USPTO said they would never give out a trademark on "Windows" because it is a generic term for GUI's. However, later, when M$ had more power, M$ appealed and where given the trademark. The judge in the Microsoft v. Lindows.com case has redacted (i.e.: censored) (with black ink) the part [PDF] of the court papers where Lindows.com explains the reason that the trademark was given to M$ despite the earlier rulings that it was a generic term - a term can never lose its genericness. If you look very carefully, you will prbably be able to read a few words ;-).)

It's kinda funny, actually. "Hey everyone! Look at what M$ is doing!!! [cue nasal chuckle] theyr'e sooo l^m3!!!1!!"

And of course, the lawyers working for Microsoft don't know what they're doing. Microsoft is known for hiring the worst possible legal teams. Because they have no money.

Next!

I thought this sounded somewhat pro-Lindows, so I poked around the Lindows site and found that although Scarlett Pruitt at IDG News take credit for writing this, it actually appears to be a press release from the Lindows marketing department.

I hope GPL will be modified to require the source to be as easily available and featured as binaries and to be usable on it's own without any commercial software added on. Like Darwin distributions from Apple, not obscure changes that do not compile and do not explain what was done.

I see this morning that Lindows has fixed their mistake, sort of... their comparison chart now lists Apple's PowerBook, instead of an iBook. Of course, a better comparison would still be to the low-end iBook, which prices out to US$1,049 with 256M RAM.

I don't know why got modded to troll--oh, wait, if it's not Apple's astroturfers, it must be those rabid Mac addicts who can't tolerate somebody not sharing their fetish.

There's some misinfo being spread in this thread. The $999 ibook people talk about has these specs:

700MHz PowerPC G3
512K L2 cache @700MHz
128MB SDRAM memory
20GB Ultra ATA drive
ATI Radeon 7500
16MB dedicated video memory
CD-ROM
Built-in 56K v.92 modem
AirPort ready
Up to 5 hr. battery life

Those who recommends this machine for OSX ought to be lined up against a wall and shot. You're going to want at least an extra 256MB to run Jaguar/Aqua, and while you can boost your RAM for under a hundred--if you install it yourself--most consumers would prefer to be sold a fully functioning product. That makes the real cost minimally $1140 if you're froogle and mechanically inclined, or around $1700 to get a machine from Apple that actually works (that $1700 model would have a combo drive and 32MB video memory). Need to do some word processing, etc? Better throw in some more dough for software. Appleworks ain't going to cut it, and messing with fink is a bit much to ask of the target demographics here.

Conversely, if you went with the Lindows jobbie you wouldn't have a cd drive. You can find an external firewire or usb for under a hundred, but if you want a rw cd/dvd combo be prepared to spend more. There might be compatibility issues, so you'll have find and dig through Lindow's hardware compatibility lists. You might enjoy more RAM--although it's not absolutely essential. Throw in another $75 to double your RAM. Finally, if you're planning to take this puppy on the road, you already know the importance of having a 56K modem. That's another $50 and another trip to Lindow's compatability list. On the plus side, you get yourself a hardware modem--Apple's modem is soft, and besides wasting cycles it may be unsupported by Linux PPC distros.

How much will Lindows software cost? Here's a tip. AFAIK Lindows "Click-N-Run" is not free, but they give a free trial when you buy a computer. If you don't care about the proprietary stuff they have like Star Office and Crossover, you can just edit your apt sources list (try /etc/apt/sources.list) to point to you're favorite free software repositories (*cough* Debian Rulez *cough*), and you're set. And here's a tip for the newbs: look for synaptic in the Click-N-Run Warehouse. It's a graphical front end to apt that makes software installation easy.

Bottom line, the Lindows Mobile PC is cheaper and lighterweight than the ibook. Paying the bare minimum will get you a functional subnotebook with access to thousands of good free software programs, and it will be $300 less than what you would pay for an ibook with no additional software. For another $250 you can get a rig comparable to the $1749 dollar ibook, but with more better software. If price is a consideration, the choice is clear.

The ibook has its charms, but you Apple heads need to fess up and get over yourselves. This little notebook fills a niche. For people who want a truly portable machine without paying through the nose or suffering the indignity of being forced to pay the Microsoft tax, the ibook is no longer the only choice.

Is it really a nice screen? The close-up photo is obviously Photoshoped (or Gimped, as the case may be).

I'm not trying to be negative, but this is something I'd want to see in person before forking over money.

The originals for those postings are here on Lindows.com's bulletin board. They come from Kevin Carmody, Lindows.com's president. That he wrote this stuff boggles my mind, but he wrote it.

Bruce

I'd give it a month or two. MythTV, Mplayer, LindowsOS. It's only logical.

Mark my words.

The GPL requires you to offer, for an at-cost charge, the source on the same format you offered the binaries. Thus, if Mandrake only sold the CD's, then they would be required to put the source on a CD and offer that to anyone who bought the binary CD

Offering ISO's on the website is a long-standing tradition of distros, but it isn't required. In fact, Lindows doesn't.

Check out this document starting on page 14.

I'm not sure if MS will win. Based on the judge's earlier ruling (you can find the rulings here), it seems like the judge is pretty well convinced by Lindows. It didn't help MS that they just kept repeating their argument over and over, instead of trying to address Lindows's claim.

http://www.lindows.com/opposition

See the numerous PDF files on that page? Those are the court documents you refer to.

In other words, even if Mike Robertson wins the trademark battle, Microsoft's lawyers can begin scrounging up ways to pile frivolous lawsuits on him. For example, browsing around the lindows.com web site, I notice the use of the phrase "Microsoft Windows", without any mention of trademark of the word "Microsoft" (much less Windows).

IMO, the judge is wrong. There is still a question as to how broad the protection of the name should be and whether it should preclude Linodws or whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Windows and Lindows. But to assert that the term Windows is generic (with respect to software, the comments here regarding glass are just idiotic and should have been moderated out) is quite absurd. The judge did silly things, like looking at a previous rejection of the trademark application or the fact that Microsoft uses the name Windows with the name Microsoft. (I guess Ford is in trouble because they use the name Taurus with the name Ford).

I'm not saying Microsoft is a slam dunk winner against Lindows, there are a lot of interesting issues involved. But to state that customers do not associate the name Windows with Microsoft is quite silly.

Oddly enough, Linux might have a real shot in the "larger pda/tablet market." There are stories out there about IBM's Meta Pad, as well reports of an AMD/China/Alchemy Semiconductor type thing... both situations where MS need not apply.

Even the Lindows guy is talking about $500 tablets... though he's thinking handwriting recognition isn't needed.

I think tablets look cool, and do have applications in medical/retail/industrial settings, but not for $2,000, not yet. Hoping Midori or whatever, plus other chip options, besides full-fledged Pentiums can get the cost down.

( Read More... | 4 of 330 comments | Your Rights Online

Linux will be ready for the desktop when Gnome or KDE drop dead (I can't wait) and some consistency settles in. Until then, I'll run BSD on my servers (the documentation is much better as a result of the consistency) and Windows on the desktop.

Then you should look at
Xandros Linux
Which is based on debian/corel linux and is quite good

Or
Lindows

Or
Lycoris

All of these are quite good Windows replacments and they will get better. Have a look at each and their prices/policies. Lindows has click'n'run which you have heard of. Lycoris I have used and is quite good.

Reviews are available from

Xandros Review

Lycoris Review

Xandros Review

Xandros Review

Xandros Review

Lindows Review

Xandros Review

Lycoris Review

Xandros Review

Lycoris Review

Lindows Review

This site sells tablets for "sub $1000." While Lindows claims they will be selling that same tablet for "around $500."

How do you determine that Lindows is illegal? You can find links to the source code here.

From Lindows, of course. The GPL only requires that they make a copy of the source available to people to whom they distributed the software.

Try the FSF in case you had any other questions about the GPL.

Lindows. If they have any success in 2003, Micro$oft will just sue them into oblivion. If they fail during 2003, Micro$oft will just laugh at them and label them as the Open Source failure. If they break even.. they'll probably just sue anyways to get it over with.

they don't offer it for free, and it's based of debian, which is all about being gpl.

-Jon

Check the DocuNote picture and then check the picture here, at Lindows news.

... is called Xandros or Lindows or even Knoppix. There are probably others. I say let the Debian developers make their distro how they want it and let those concerned with money-making worry about making it user-friendly for J. Random Luser.

Debian could sure learn a lot from Lindows. Lindows is an excellent product. If only Debian could be so clean, so easy. Doubtful Debian has the skill to pull it off. It takes a lot of work to make something both powerful and easy to use.

haha...ok, forgive my little play on words.

Debian is not for newbies. It is *possible* for a newbie to install Debian, but only if they know their exact hardware specifications and have studied the Debian installation guides thoroughly. I installed Debian as my first Linux distro, and I'll agree with this author -- its a bitch to install. I knew my exact hardware specs and thoroughly pre-read through the install documentation (this was a graphical install guide) before starting. It was still a bitch. Then there's the setting it up so it meets your needs: another big bitch.

Hence, Debian is not for newbies. Its even confusing for experts. Now that I've used Debian for several years, I know it. But its install process is still unworthy. Do the developers try to make the install as confusing and non-sensical as possible? Is their model for installation, "Debian installer, dumb and daft by default"? A graphical install isn't necessary; in fact, graphical install's don't make it that much easier to install, and are probably a waste of valuable development time. Most users are still smart enough to figure out how to navigate through a text-based install using hte arrow keys if you tell them how to do it with on-screen help (i.e., up to move to previous item, etc).

Conclusion: Debian is not for dummies ;-). If you're a new user and want the benefits of Debian (i.e., true to the Free Software spirit, stable as a rock, more secure, great package management system, and lots of packages), then get Libranet or Lindows. Personally, I'd recomment Lindows, as it seems to have more momentum and is even being included on dirt-cheap PC's sold at Walmart. Btw, for those misinformed /.ers, Lindows does not violate the GPL. I assume that their CD also comes with an offer to ship you the source at the cost of shipment.

Conclusion: Debian for the daring, Lindows & Libranet for learners. You can get Lindows by paying an $99 dollar membership fee, after which you can have Lindows shipped to your house or download it. Don't bitch about the price. And no, they're not offering it for free download off the internet (and NO, that doesn't violate the GPL). These people actually have a business plan which will keep them in business. Personally, I think that $99 is great, since it gives you access future versions of Lindows. After two years, you're click-'n-run deal runs out, and you can purchase click-'n-run service if you still want it.

The thing I like about Lindows is they have a REAL business plan. They seem to be pursuing Lindows as an OS to be installed on computers off the shelf (refer to Walmart), and seem to be pushing for OEMs to have it on their machines off-the-shelf. They also have ways to make money through their valuable click-'n-run service. Best of all, they aren't offering their entire modified version of Debian GNU/Linux online for free download. This mean's that they're not going to become another dot-bomb. Freeloaders, don't whine; if you want something for free (as in $0), get Debian GNU/Linux.

Suggestion to Debian developers: don't waste time with a graphical install, but do make the install more intelligent and logical, with auto-detection; have good default setup. Things should be set up to a good default when you boot into Debian; i.e., 12pt fonts, the WM of your choice set up to a reasonable and useable default (I'd recommend them working on a good default for KDE, GNOME, and WindowMaker).

But don't fret too much over newbie-nicities. Commercial wrap-arounds for Debian like Lindows and Libranet will make a Debian which has great defaults and is easy for the newbies. They will spend their coding time on making reasonable defaults and an easy install. Debian Developers should spend most of their coding time on hard technical details.

haha...ok, forgive my little play on words.

Debian is not for newbies. It is *possible* for a newbie to install Debian, but only if they know their exact hardware specifications and have studied the Debian installation guides thoroughly. I installed Debian as my first Linux distro, and I'll agree with this author -- its a bitch to install. I knew my exact hardware specs and thoroughly pre-read through the install documentation (this was a graphical install guide) before starting. It was still a bitch. Then there's the setting it up so it meets your needs: another big bitch.

Hence, Debian is not for newbies. Its even confusing for experts. Now that I've used Debian for several years, I know it. But its install process is still unworthy. Do the developers try to make the install as confusing and non-sensical as possible? Is their model for installation, "Debian installer, dumb and daft by default"? A graphical install isn't necessary; in fact, graphical install's don't make it that much easier to install, and are probably a waste of valuable development time. Most users are still smart enough to figure out how to navigate through a text-based install using hte arrow keys if you tell them how to do it with on-screen help (i.e., up to move to previous item, etc).

Conclusion: Debian is not for dummies ;-). If you're a new user and want the benefits of Debian (i.e., true to the Free Software spirit, stable as a rock, more secure, great package management system, and lots of packages), then get Libranet or Lindows. Personally, I'd recomment Lindows, as it seems to have more momentum and is even being included on dirt-cheap PC's sold at Walmart. Btw, for those misinformed /.ers, Lindows does not violate the GPL. I assume that their CD also comes with an offer to ship you the source at the cost of shipment.

Conclusion: Debian for the daring, Lindows & Libranet for learners. You can get Lindows by paying an $99 dollar membership fee, after which you can have Lindows shipped to your house or download it. Don't bitch about the price. And no, they're not offering it for free download off the internet (and NO, that doesn't violate the GPL). These people actually have a business plan which will keep them in business. Personally, I think that $99 is great, since it gives you access future versions of Lindows. After two years, you're click-'n-run deal runs out, and you can purchase click-'n-run service if you still want it.

The thing I like about Lindows is they have a REAL business plan. They seem to be pursuing Lindows as an OS to be installed on computers off the shelf (refer to Walmart), and seem to be pushing for OEMs to have it on their machines off-the-shelf. They also have ways to make money through their valuable click-'n-run service. Best of all, they aren't offering their entire modified version of Debian GNU/Linux online for free download. This mean's that they're not going to become another dot-bomb. Freeloaders, don't whine; if you want something for free (as in $0), get Debian GNU/Linux.

Suggestion to Debian developers: don't waste time with a graphical install, but do make the install more intelligent and logical, with auto-detection; have good default setup. Things should be set up to a good default when you boot into Debian; i.e., 12pt fonts, the WM of your choice set up to a reasonable and useable default (I'd recommend them working on a good default for KDE, GNOME, and WindowMaker).

But don't fret too much over newbie-nicities. Commercial wrap-arounds for Debian like Lindows and Libranet will make a Debian which has great defaults and is easy for the newbies. They will spend their coding time on making reasonable defaults and an easy install. Debian Developers should spend most of their coding time on hard technical details.

Where's the stress relief when the damn thing Blue Screens?

Try here. Or here. Or here.

A couple more:

Lindows
Red Hat

Further investigation dredged up this:

Does Lindows Comply With Open Source Agreements? and The Lindows License Agreement. The latter points out that the GPL allows the charging of a fee for the transfer of source code, but omits the fact that such a fee must cover only the actual cost of distributing said source code.

I still don't know what to make of it. I looked for info on the "evaluation version" I heard rumored, but all I can find are mentions of a general release sometime down the road.

Further investigation dredged up this:

Does Lindows Comply With Open Source Agreements? and The Lindows License Agreement. The latter points out that the GPL allows the charging of a fee for the transfer of source code, but omits the fact that such a fee must cover only the actual cost of distributing said source code.

I still don't know what to make of it. I looked for info on the "evaluation version" I heard rumored, but all I can find are mentions of a general release sometime down the road.

I've also noticed in some of their screen shots, that their new custom desktop (widgets etc.) are eerily aqualicious. Lots of jelly-like spherical buttons, shiny, shaded bubbly menu bars that are "slightly" transparent, an emphasis on blue...

These have already been linked, but the screen shots definitely have more than a passing resemblance

When the original MSNBC article was up, lots of people were pointing out this: AOL 7.0 Lindows client preview. If there is no AOL/Lindows partnership, does this suggest that this AOL client will work on all Linux distros, not just Lindows? Or is this article going too far in completely denying the existance of any significant teaming up?

This kind of philosophy has been the main cause of many destructive worms and viruses on the Windows platform. To repeat this error endangers the Internet ecosystem as a whole and gives Linux a bad name. Furthermore, it gives people a justification to run as root -- this practice should be discouraged. Any operating system that is insecure by default should be boycotted.

Lindows.com is currently stating that they are doing this in the name of convenience, a stupid argument (how hard can it be to ask for an administration password?). As long as they do not reverse their stance in this matter, Lindows should be boycotted by all technically competent users. I'm getting enough e-mail worms per day as it is.

Actually check this out AOL 7.0 for LindowsOS - Sneak Preview . There is AOL for LindowsOS - Is it real or vapor.. I dunno. Is it Linux or Wine? I dunno.

At least, Lindows.com seems to think so. Click here to see the AOL 7.0 for Lindows preview.

Yes, I know someone else pasted this link already but it was a reply to another thread.

"Of course, this is all rather academic because if you'd read the article, you'd know that the headline is BS and that the linked story talks about including Netscape 7, not AOL."

Go to the Lindows website and see for yourself. The article may not cite it directly, but AOL 7.0 is coming to Lindows.

I can't believe the growing ridiculousness of this website.

First off, what terrible research. You should have linked to the actual website, where'd you see that there actually is AOL for Linux coming our way.

Secondly, rather than let the uncompromising, closed-minded crowd continue to hate LindowsOS because it appears to be stylish amongst the l33t, you should have posted an actual story (submitted and rejected) that would be truly informational about LindowsOS, like this story.

This is turning into selective and irresponsible technology reporting.

I can't believe the growing ridiculousness of this website.

First off, what terrible research. You should have linked to the actual website, where'd you see that there actually is AOL for Linux coming our way.

Secondly, rather than let the uncompromising, closed-minded crowd continue to hate LindowsOS because it appears to be stylish amongst the l33t, you should have posted an actual story (submitted and rejected) that would be truly informational about LindowsOS, like this story.

This is turning into selective and irresponsible technology reporting.