Slashdot Mirror
What's up with Lindows?
A reader writes "In this editorial at DesktopLinux.com, commentator Malcolm Dean questions whether Lindows is any sort of linux at all, and suggests that the world might actually be better off without yet another proprietary/commercial Windows wannabe (that runs Windows apps, no less). Dean asks how it is possible that, as Lindows.com founder Michael Robertson manages to claims in his latest newsletter, Lindows' ten million lines of code include a Windows Compatibility Module that somehow works better than anything else available today. "Has Mr. Robertson's team accomplished in a few months what took WINE years?" Where is the substance to back the hype? Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform?"
Not all of us use GNU/linux only for these idealistic reasons. I use linux mostly because I prefer it above Windows. I don't use linux because it is all free and everything. Of course that it is free is a nice benefit but it isn't all important for me. I do realize that for some people this is not true but you can't just generalize the idealism that is often found with linux users to everyone who is using linux.
So I see nothing wrong with being able to run windows software on linux. There is a lot of good software available on windows and in some respect it is a waste to just reprogram what is already available. Instead it is better to concentrate on things that are not already there. I really see nothing wrong with the ability to use both linux and windows software together. If there is an existing windows package to do something then that's nice.
Just my opinion.
Greetings,
Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
If Office runs on Lindows or on Wine, you can trust Microsoft will find ways to make it runeable [sic] only on Windows,...
So in other words, "Office isn't done until Lindows and Wine won't run it."
There are several sides to this. On the one hand, Wine translates Windows applications to run under other OSs, while Lindows provides services for native Windows APIs, so Microsoft will have to continually "innovate"... er, obfuscate these to prevent compatibility. Who is placed on the "treadmill" of forced code extension then, Microsoft?
That strikes me as a Good Thing because in doing so Microsoft will have to break the ability of Windows XP+1 to run Office XP (and Office 2000, etc), thus alienating a lot of customers who won't choose to upgrade MS Office. Mike Magee at The Inquirer still runs an early release of WinWord because the next release broke the glossary. And I still use WinWord95 because it works under OS/2 and later versions can still read the files it produces. Microsoft better not break backwards compatibility for its Office applications, or it will see a major customer backlash involving wholesale defection to other applications (like StarOffice) that can handle all the older MS Office formats.
On another hand, a large part of Microsoft's revenues proceed from its hammerlock on the OEMs (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM, etc.) to preload Windows (and only Windows) on consumer and business PCs. If that monopoly is broken, a big chunk of Microsoft's revenues are suddenly at risk. If more reliable and secure OSs are found capable of running MS Office applications, this risk to MS increases. This will also be a Good Thing, IMHO. So Lindows and Wine are backing Microsoft into a corner - I applaud it.
By the way, if you have any comments about the Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case, you can send them to:
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You have 60 days from Nov 28. By law, all public comments received must be published in the Federal Register. One hopes public comments will be reviewed by the Court.
Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform.
... people aren't just going to switch from Windows to Linux because there's no software, and there will continue to be no software if there is no people to sell/give it to.
... a solution to which would be a benefit to us all, whether we'd like to admit it or not.
What kind of comment is this? Software is software, and right now some of the new, great software is a heck of a lot easier to write for the Windows platform.
The community's way of dealing with that should be to create a way to run all of this software on the Linux OS. It is doing this well, IMO.
The problem with some of these anti-MS advocats is that they think they can take over the market in one fell swoop. Well, I'm sorry it's just not going to happen that way
Making Windows software run on Linux is a perfect bridge here, even if Lindows is not free, it still solves a problem
----- rL
In all seriousness, I think it's been painfully clear for a long time that there's an enormous double standard in play in the OSS field. Everyone claims to want to improve Linux and make it more useful, but as soon as someone claims they have a way to remove the biggest single barrier preventing the 95% of desktop users currently running Windows convert to Linux, then everyone gets pissy about it.
My suggestion: Quit your damn whining and wait and see what Lindows delivers. If it works, it will end MS's monopoly faster than you can say "Ralph Nader". If it doesn't, then we can make fun of it and move on.
Proprietary software has a right to exist and people deserve to get paid for their work.
Fiat doesn't make it so. Sorry, but pick any economic theory you like; none of them say you "deserve" to get paid for your work. If I collect a bunch of sticks and buy a bunch of yarn and busy myself making god's eyes twelve hourse a day, do I "deserve" to get paid for it? Of course that's nonsense.
Personally, I prefer the capitalist take on this issue. I'd like to let the market decide what the effort that goes into programming is worth. And I'd like the market to decide what the value of mass producing digital content is worth. But we don't get to see that happen, because these industries are propped up by government regulations that circumvent the proper operation of the market.
If people want free software, they'll choose it on its merits.
Not necessarily, given the current anti-competitive market in which it has to compete. Moreover, if you consider freedom in and of itself the most important "merit", your statement evaporates in a tautology.
I would love to see the "market dictate succcess or failure of a piece of software". Not the US patent office. Not the monopoly owners of copyrighted proprietary de-facto standards.
Given the sordid state of the software industry, it's about time we do away with notion that proprietary software deserves a seat at the table. The only reason it has a seat at all is because we, as a society, invited it. It's time for the boot.
And let's never stop having this "endless debate on freedom".
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!