Slashdot Mirror
Michael Robertson Interview about Lindows
unclegus writes "I ran across this article talking about Michael Roberston and Lindows. Says a "Sneak Preview" will be available in a few weeks. Release 1.0 will be $100 for single user ..." Dan Gillmor, the author of it, has said that it appears to be the real thing - I'll be interested in getting my hands on it.
"More choice is always better than less."
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
From the info in the article, it seems that they are either erverse-engineering the Windows APIs, or mimicking the functionality with their own code. This is a time-consuming task.
Also, they said they are focusing on only 10 or so applications. They list Work, Excel, etc. But what about future revisions of these programs? I wonder if Ms would purposefully change them to break under Lindows, which Lindows would have to change to accomodate.
So will this become a perpetual 'chasing' game, trying to catch up to Microsoft?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
There are two screenshots of Lindows in use here:
h ot s.php
http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_screens
It looks impressive to me (so far).
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but only changes to GPL sofware need to be released. They can do whatever they want with Wine (not GPL), and if they made any kernel changes they will be released. I dunno who told you that about bash, but it's incorrect, RMS has no say in who uses or packages bash as long as no changes are made or those changes are released. Something being reliant or using GPL software means absolutely nothing in regards to the GPL.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Home users are unlikely to - most of them stick with the windows that came preinstalled & M$'s oem pricing is sufficiently good that i cant see system manufacturers changing. Not to mention all those clauses that stop them shipping non-ms OS's. After all lindows is unlikely to run games or edutainment software well.
The business community are unlikely to - why would a sysadmin decide to put his neck on the line switching 5000 systems to lindows. When one critical application doesn't work as it's meant to, it all come crashing down around him. Most sysadmins will just stick to windows even if it does cost more.
The geek community are unlikely to. For the past five years i've kept a linux machine and a windows machine and will soon be readding a mac to that collection. Bluntly windows rocks for games and multimedia - whilst i'd love to do these on linux the support just isn't there. I'll keep my linux pure and gpl'd thank you very much.
The education community might. Although schools tend to avoid anything that they dont know since they dont tend to have a dedicated sys admin to set things up (and in the uk most schools pay sooo far over the odds for computers that the price difference wouldn't care).
Universities and Colleges might jump, since art students will be able to stick with word and it of course gives tech students unix as well. However most uni's at least have some linux workstations, or windows machines with exceed and big linux servers.
Quite honestly i dont see the market for it. Although if they go bust i really hope they open their code to wine.
Ultimately microsofts approach to this problem will be obvious:
Windows costs $W
Lindows costs $L
Office costs $O
Simply create a new bundle which includes Windows and Office at a price less than $O+$L.
Is [creating a Linux kernel module] a GPL violation?
No. Linus has allowed binary-only modules into the kernel provided they communicate with the kernel using well-defined APIs. For instance, the vmware package includes a binary-only kernel module.
If Apple can't make BASH the MacOS X command line shell (apparently they asked, RMS said no, that would be a violation)
I don't see how it would be a violation under the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This OS, despite the near magical quality of Windows and Linux applications on one system, looks to be a nitch OS even if it succeeds. Here's why.
In the article itself, the opinion is voiced that there are about 10 major applications that Windows users use. OK, granted. Unfortunately, what we are discussing here is an OS switch, and it's not that simple.
Linux users are quite accustomed to the notion of things like using 8 different IRC clients as the situation warrants. Windows users, on the other hand, quickly grow accustom to even the tiniest quirk of their default system. AOL can't change anything, even on their website, without causing some of their users to be unhappy about the difference.
The point is, if Lindows runs Office and a few other major apps well, that's enough for some businesses. But for home users, EVERYTHING must work as they expect from previous experience, or they won't even consider switching. If their bizarre little propritary note keeper doesn't work, no dice. They ain't movin.
Linux users, who you might think logically would be more interested, will be put off by the commercial nature of the project and are far more likely to wait for/help the wine project. Also, VMware and WinforLin allow people to run Windows programs. There's already compeition out there.
So the only conceivable mass market for this system is business. Great. Unfortunately, we all know how keen the vast majority of the business world is on switching to something different and untried. Especially if it involves retraining. Linux applications won't intice them much - there are other ways to get those, using cygwin, vnc, remote Xwindows connections, etc. Lindows does most of this, let's say. It does it a little better than the above solutions. But will it do ENOUGH better to justify businesses upgrading? Unlikely.
Don't get me wrong - I hope it succeeds. It's just going to have a heck of a time doing so.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
> a) Windows is unstable. Period.
Which Windows? I know everyone loves to beat up the unreliability of the 16 bit Windows kernel, but with Windows 2000 and Windows XP it's a different story.
In a few years Microsoft won't be selling any of the Win9x series.. then the extra stability of Linux won't be such a novelty to users, and Linux folks will have to come up with a better line than a more stable kernel.
Or to say it differently, when most Windows users don't find Windows to be unstable, telling them that you've got a more stable OS isn't going to convince them.
- Steve
I hate to say it. I think competition would be GREAT on the desktop, but this won't fly.
Why? I'm a network admin and I wouldn't switch for ~$50/machine. What happens when one of our apps doesn't work? What happens when the VP of whatever gets a new widget and there is no driver? Now I'm supporting a couple of operating systems.
Also, what happens when an app is flakey. You think the vendor will support me when I'm running Lindows? Good luck! It sounds good in theory, but I just don't see it. One thing people need to realize is that the cost of software is very small compared to support and other things. Saving ~$50/machine is not a big deal. Sure, you may save a lot if you buy 10K machines at a time, but if you do you can get some good deals from other vendors as well.
I think the OpenSource community will have much better luck with a *GOOD* Office type application, not so much on the operating systems. That's where the real money is spent. Since the OS comes on the system the price of that is usually overlooked, and low enough not to matter when a $100 competitor comes out. Give me a good supported Office app for $100 and I'll switch from my $350/user app.
You missed nothing. They intend to throw a bunch of proprietary stuff on top of Linux (namely the Windows compatibility stuff and the installers) to make sure that you end up paying a $100/seat license for this. I don't know whether to cheer or jeer myself.
I guess I'll wait to hear whether they contribute money or code back to all the Free Software and Open Source projects they'll be taking advantage of in the process. I suppose they can't de-GPL anything, so that's a major plus.
The real question is, why for $100 would anyone switch off Windows for less than 100% compatibility with their Windows software? What guarantee will Lindows make that the next upgrade set from MS won't break Lindows, leaving users in the lurch with applications going stale?
I do not have a signature
Well, what it really does it is illustrate the power of open source. There was a recent study done on Debian Potato based on the amount of lines of code in it. It was estimated that commercially developing it all would have cost approximately 1.9 billion. They really aren't developing the OS, they are simply developing the translation layer.