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?"

Comments

Microsoft Monopoly

[linca]

The problem of Microsoft's monopoly will not be solved by making Windows emulating layers over Linux. Their monopoly is based on the "double" monopoly they have on Office and on Windows. If Office runs on Lindows or on Wine, you can trust Microsoft will find ways to make it runeable only on Windows, as complete compatibility is unpossible with all the undocumented features there is in Windows. IMHO the only way to break Microsoft's Monopoly is to break it on the 'Office' Apps, not on the OS layer.

Re:Microsoft Monopoly

[s390]

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.

Yes, being able to run more programs is worthwhile

[3141]

Why would anybody want to be able to run fewer programs than there was the potential for? There are thousands of extremely useful Windows programs out there (believe it or not, it's true!) and being able to run them on Linux can only be a good thing.

Programs are tools. Why would anybody choose to limit the amount of tools in their toolkit, when some of the forsaken tools could help them get their job finished much earlier?

Good luck to those who would add to the functionality of Linux!

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Jorrit]

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,

Missing the point

[vidarh]

Most people here seem to miss the point. Lindows is going after the Windows desktop market, not the Linux market. It is being positioned as an alternative to Windows, not to Linux. The ability to run Windows apps is what matters, and the ability to run Linux app is just an added bonus.

The only real desktop market at this time is for Windows desktops. So how to you compete in that market? The most obvious answer is: Run Windows apps as well as Windows, and do something that Windows doesn't do. In this case, they're trying to achieve that by taking Wine on Linux, extend it and package it as a Windows clone.

They get to benefit from all driver work and performance enhancements done by the open source community for Linux and Wine, and add to that to be able to put out a Windows environment at far lower development cost than Microsoft. Leveraging open source is quite possibly the ONLY way to compete in the Windows market, considering the immense sales revenues Microsoft has to fund their development.

This is a good thing, regardless of whether you like Windows or not: If Lindows succeeds, Microsoft will be forced to cut prices to compete. If you like Windows you will benefit from lower prices, if you hate Windows you will benefit from having Microsoft busy spending their resources on a more direct competitor as well as with less money to spend on squashing competitors, as being forced to cut prices will have a very real effect on their earnings.

The use of windows software.. heh..

[arcade]

do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform?"

Face it. There is no way in hell all software will be available for Linux, and if a company cannot run that mission critical app, then they won't switch to Linux.

Let me give you an example. I'm from Norway. Companies tend to want programs where they can do their accounting - which has all norwegian tax-rules, and so forth ad nauseum programmed into them.

In norway we have some software called 'Guru Software' or something like that, and surely others too. Its windows applications.
Now, a company which has done its accounting in that software for a couple of years is quite locked down. Its not an easy task to just switch to Linux. The windows-software _needs_ to run on linux, so that previous years accounting information is easily accessible. Of course, one could always hope that the company would make a linuxversion of the software, but that isn't always easy.
Now, microsoft 'owns' such companies as long until Linux can run this kind of windows software perfectly. And the answer is 'yes' -- we want the ability to run such software under Linux. If not, well then we're not gonna get such companies as users.

Take another example. I'm currently doing civil service in Norway, in part of a city adminstration. We're 'locked in' on using Windows, as a lot of proprietary solutions we are using is windows-only applications. They run on windows servers, and the clients only exist for windows.
These are products in the health and social sectors, with highly specialized use. Its not very likely that the free software movement will produce software that less than 20 relatively small institutions worldwide will use, which is of this enourmous complexity.
The answer is that we _need_ the ability to run windows apps, and yes, it is something we _want_. IF not, we've lost a _LOT_ of potential users, which are 'locked in'.

Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Linux

[rlowe69]

Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform.

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 ... 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.

Making Windows software run on Linux is a perfect bridge here, even if Lindows is not free, it still solves a problem ... a solution to which would be a benefit to us all, whether we'd like to admit it or not.

Most people use what is already there because

[HanzoSan]

If something isnt broke, why fix it?

Its not that people dont care, they dont know any better.They arent knowledgeable enough to know theres something better than windows better than IE, and so on and so forth.

They use AOL because they believe AOL IS the internet, not a client to access it.

They use Microsoft Windows because they believe Windows IS the computer, and that theres nothing else to use.

You see, if people arent given a chance to choose in a store when they go to buy their computer, they automatically assume that because Windows is all thats being sold, that Windows is all there is.

Proof- Not so long ago, people believe that in order to buy a PC, you had to buy an Intel Pentium, people even called PCs Intel Boxes, or Pentiums. When a person wanted to buy a Video Card before Nvidia arrived, People went for a Voodoo, not because Voodoo was the only card but because thats all that people saw in the stores, sure there were other cards but what card did all games seem to support? The Voodoo cards.

Sure theres always been choice, but if every corperation, every store, everywhere you go, you dont see any choice, you just see one product, eventually in your mind thats it, theres nothing else to choose from. After years of only computers packed with Windows, it will be quite a shock to see a computer packed with Lindows, but if Lindows can prove to the user that its better than Windows,
Like Nvidia beat Vodooo, and AMD beat Intel, Lindows may beat Windows.

However, IF Microsoft forces OEMs to only use Windows from Microsoft, and people like Dell dont even sell you a computer with anything else, well, what do you expect to happen here?

I'm happy to see Lindows stand up to Microsoft and give them serious competition, the problem with OS2 is, it wasnt competition at all, it actually helped sell Microsoft Windows because OS2 sat in the backround, no OEM sold OS2 computers, not even IBM the makers of OS2 sold OS2 on their own Machines.

Just like Mozilla and Netscape cant catch up to IE because AOL wont use Netscapes browser on their own software.

So what do you expect to happen when Linux users dont support Lindows?

Typical response

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole open source religion is based on the notion of letting everyone do whatever he or she wants, as long as the rights and freedoms of others aren't infringed. Unless someone wants to do something that might let the vast masses of Windows users convert to Linux and bring their apps with them. No, we couldn't possibly want that--all those dirty, ignorant newbies befouling our pristine Linux and (horrors!) running things like MS Office on it. Oh, the humanity!

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.

Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin

[wfrp01]

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".