Slashdot Mirror
AOL: Lindows Is Misleading People
jgeelan writes "According to this breaking news item, AOL has apparently said over the weekend that it is going to ask Lindows to change its promotional material after concluding that Lindows is misleading people into thinking that it has a strategic relationship with AOL."
um.. I don't get it. AOL is actually trying to divorce itself from software that requires quite a bit of tweeking to work right?
The Internet is generally stupid
concluding that Lindows is misleading people into thinking that it has a strategic relationship with AOL...
/. crowd!
So that's how they got so popular with the
Lindows CEO Michael Roberts, formerly CEO of mp3.com, was reported as saying "We have great faith in AOL's ability to fund me with another $100 million in venture capital, and I'm really sorry about that whole mp3.com blowout thing. Anyone want to go for a ride on my new yacht?"
For their next trick, having pissed off Microsoft and AOL, Lindows will be renaming to iLindows, just to attract attention from Apple
Lawyers - collect the set.
a grrl & her server
...just how hard is it to mislead potential AOL customers?
I suspect the main reason Aol is doing this is to distance themselves from being a possible competitor to Microsoft.
After all, they wouldn't want to do anything to weaken the M$ monopoly notion would they?
eTrade SUCKS
Nothing surprising.
Lindows is misleading everyone and everything. When you read their PR, it's like they claim to invent everything. It's always something new, something better. Just marketing, nothing much behind
That Lindows is a really shady operation? Everything they do seems a litle scummy.
Reminds me of AIMster.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
esp. since most of the people buying these boxes will think it can actually run Windows apps, which is what killed OS/2.
Linux will never get anywhere, never, until it stops acting like it owes people something and makes its own headway without emulating anything.
Why, it even had MSNBC talking about Lindows 2.0 as "AOL's new Netscape OS."
;-)
So this wasn't just a case of Lindows stretching the truth- it was also a case of bad reporting by MSNBC, without whom the "AOL-Lindows" link would never have been brought up (or at least, it would not have been as hyped as it was).
But what if it wasn't just "sloppy reporting"? You have to wonder- why would a site associated with MS hint at a non-existant connection between Lindows and AOL?
I smell a conspiracy here...
I thought that Lindows had a strategic relationship with AOL. Good thing that's all cleared up now. Whew.
I planned on inserting something witty here but never got around to it.
Richard Stallman, director of the Free Software Foundation, wrote a 43 page letter to Lindows telling them why they should NOT call their operating system GNU/Lindows.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Imagine this in the future, grom Ask Slashdot:
"Hello. My name is John and I'm having problems with my new PC. The AOL daemon (AOLd) keeps crashing. Anyone had this problem before? Thanks!! u r so cool if u can help!"
I think Lindows is trying to follow the Napster model:
1. Create a product (it doesn't have to be any good).
Oh, that's right, Napster *was* a crappy product, despite the fact that it was one of the first of its kind, and managed to almost single-handedly change the face of music online. Napster was the cream of the crop when it started, despite the fact that it started to tank later on in its life.
Lindows has no such claim to fame. From what I can tell (not having used the OS), it just seems like a sloppy distro, made to look pretty, with a name that (erroneously) implies that it'll run MS products. It very well may do more harm to the Linux (GNU/Linux, whatever) cause than good.
Lindows is misleading people into thinking that it has a strategic relationship with AOL...
This just in.. Company changes its name to AOLindows. Claims it's just an amazing coincidence.
=-Jippy
Everything inside Lindows 2.0 is improved. Not perfect, but improved. The graphics are better and there's an overall feeling of a professional OS inside, rather than geeks-only software. The KDE desktop looks and feels like Windows, with a few exceptions.
Jeez I don't know where to start...
There's an overall feeling of a professional OS inside, rather than geeks-only software.
Ummm I'm just reading this and my head begins to hurt. I use linux and I believe it has always been a professional OS. By professional I mean, well it works, it's extremely advanced, can be used for just about anything and it's very customizable. Not because it isn't "geeks-only" what kind of stupid statement is that? If I give my cousin a fisher price computer thingy with those plastic crappy cards that have different games on them, I don't call it a professional computer because it's not. It isn't "geeks-only", but that doesn't make it professional.
When I want a professional OS, I don't install Windows Me, that isn't professional, it isn't "geeks-only" either. I would install Linux (or FreeBSD which I have started to use these past few weeks.) When I use Linux it does have a "geeks-only" feel to it, that's one reason why I like it. It's stable, secure (well most of the time), small, powerfull, and all this stuff is what makes it professional (in my opinion), I don't call something professional when it isn't "geeks-only." I don't want a little paper clip to hold my hand when I compile a kernel, I don't want a little dog to help me updatedb and locate | grep. I want a raw OS, one that's powerfull and secure, not one that's designed with my grandmother in mind. The things that make it professional are the same things that make it feel like it's "geeks-only."
The KDE desktop looks and feels like Windows, with a few exceptions.
Why does everyone try to compare desktop managers with Windows? Isn't the whole point of installing Linux to get away from Microsoft? Out of the 6 billion people in this world (yeah they're not all comptuer geeks but still at least one should be good enough) is the Windows desktop the most creative and easy to use interface we can come up with? I'm sure there must be something better out there to use. Why do we keep making Linux more and more like windows in all these Distro's. Well I guess it's to make the transition into Linux an easy one, but people seem to learn how to use Mac OS just fine and that's far from windows (at least from what I've seen it is, I could be wrong, not a huge Mac user.) Anyway that statement about Lindows being more professional because it isn't "geeks-only" really pisses me off, and also the comparison to windows.
Why shouldn't AOL team up with a linux distribution to make some kind of "AOL-Linux"? It would be a niche product basically for people who use their PC's exclusively for AOL and web browsing. A 50% tax on perfectly usable hardware ($200 bare bones at Walmart, $300 for same system with windows) is quite excessive.
That MSNBC article reminds me very much of the early days of micros... when nothing worked but nobody would admit it. An attitude that has, alas, to some extent been internalized into the whole PC industry.
... doesn't work. Outlook almost works (it can't find my e-mail server at work) and Internet Explorer works sometimes. I haven't tried other Windows software titles, but I'm told some do work."
In the late seventies, an acquaintance of mine used to rave about his Northstar system. I asked about reliability and he said it had been perfect, never any problems. I asked for a demo. He said he'd love to give me one but he couldn't right then, as the power supply had burned out. I said "I thought you said you hadn't had any problems." He said, "Oh, the problem is just in the power supply. The computer itself is fine."
The MSNBC article has that flavor to me. "As for the Microtel hardware, everything works as advertised except for the CD-ROM drive, which I haven't been able to get sound from yet." Right. It's not as if sound were an important function.
He says "I mentioned that Lindows was originally touted as being able to run Microsoft Windows programs. Guess what? IT CAN." (Capitals his). That's what he says first. It's only a little later that he mentions "[in Office the] Open New Document icon;
Yeah, right. It's not as if you'd ever want to create a NEW document, editing existing ones should be good enough for anyone. It's not as if it matters that the email program can't talk to your email server. And, yes, I'm so picky that I expect IE to work more often than "sometimes." I demand nothing less than "mostly," and you should, too.
Lindows... "IT CAN" run Windows software. And my friend's Northstar computer wasn't broken.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
you had better give people the right links, after all you wouldnt want their cookie sharing exploits to get in the way
http://msid.msn.com/mps_id_sharing/redirect.asp?w
I read the article (imagine that around here) and it seems to me that the author (MSNBC payroll) of the article is the one that makes claims that there is a relationship between Lindows and AOL.
Speak truth to power.
I've read the reviews and it would appear that there's a lot of potential in Lindows 2.0. However I have a problem with the fact (or at least the perception) that the driving force behind Lindows' marketing is deception.
Say what you will about it's differences, 'Lindows' CAN imply a connection, or at least a similarity, to the popular Microsoft offering. This latest news only strengthens the perception that Lindows is trying to achieve success/market share by deceiving it's target customers.
If Lindows is going to gain any credibility, it has to be a little more careful about the face it shows to the public. It would be a shame if a great product (who can't like a $199 computer system?) is never realized because it's creators can't play by the rules.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
..AOL is misleading people into thinking that it is actually a ISP.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I wouldn't have touched XP yet, except that an artist friend of mine just upgraded from a hand-me-down machine to a new one. That was his first comment, why did they change everything? He's thinking about returning it and spending a little more on an Apple.
I loaded the Windows version of the GIMP to give him a chance to get away from Photoshop. I'm trying to convince him that it is worth his time to learn GIMP rather than Photoshop which will continue to cost him money that he doesn't have. Unfortunately, I'm not experience enough with any of these tools to be able to say that the GIMP has all the features that he will want from Photoshop, or to help him learn it.
I'd bet $20 that the Microtel PC doesn't have one of those pass-thru wires from the CDROM to the sound card.
But does MSNBC's target audience know that? Nope. It's entirely possible people will think that Linux doesn't support playing audio CD's.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Hey, you wanna swim with the sharks, ya gotta learn a thing or three from them.
Seriously, though, if anybody's going to try to compete directly with M$ without a worldwide programmer network a la Gnulix, they have to do a bit of puffing, I would think. Considering the track record of the opposition, I fail to understand all the carping about Lindows' honesty. This is going to get down and dirty, as they say, and I wouldn't necessarily write these guys off yet. As for stealing the name, a real live Federal Court ruled that "Windows" was in the public domain and that M$ hadn't defended it as they had to if they seriously thought it was theirs. I suppose they are appealing, but I fail to see how anybody could consider it their property, I mean, Sun's Open Windows, for one example? You might as well try to trademark the word refrigerator.
As for AOL's reaction, I'd be more willing to believe that they're just scared of Big Bad Billy than that they're concerned with their reputation. If I were them, I'd be glad to see somebody try to help M$ on their way toward the fate of all one-product companies. I might even come right out and suggest that, well, nothing's been SIGNED yet, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to turn AOL/Netscape into an operating system. Make the Dragon of Redmond sweat a little.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
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
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
I suggest you buy a 5 dollar dictionary and learn how to spell 'dollar'...
at least on my backup machine..I have to admit coming from Windows to Lindows was relatively painless, easy for a user of Windows since Version 2 (or was it 3?) Anyway it was easy, much easier than Windows, and a damn site easier than learning Linux (for a lifetime Windows user)
You think this is just a get rich quick (again) scheme? I hope not, but you could be right. You'd think the venture capitalists would learn after a while though. ;o) Makes one wonder where they got their money in the first place.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
What do you call the claims Lindows made about AOL? Marketing. What's a synonym for marketing? Lying. No surprise here.
How ya like dat?
They call it a "Professional OS" for the same reason that Lincoln and Cadillac refer to their leather and sunroof equipped SUV's as "Professional Grade" and why Drain-O calls itself "Professional Strength". It's so people wouldn't think that they're buying something made specifically for the mindless consumer masses. It's that simple. Lindows is billed as a "Professional OS" to blow smoke up the asses of people who would buy a "no user servicable parts inside" PC from the likes of Wal-Mart. Try not to be offended by the "non-geek" label. These people are trying to make sales, and calling things "Grandma Friendly" isn't going to work nearly as well as stroking people's ego.
The reason for comparing KDE, or anything else for that matter, to Windows is because the "average non-geek" doesn't have any computer experience besides Windows. It gives them something familiar to relate to. Comparison and contrast are very effective means of explaining things to people... "Doing A is like doing B." "A looks like B, except with regard to C, which is sort of like D and E, and totally different than F." Giving people a common, familiar reference such as Windows is, actually, doing Linux a service, because (the more observant) people who consider buying a PC from Wal-Mart are now being informed that Linux is a Windows-like alternative to Windows. Wherever they get their PC, hopefully they'll take that factoid with them.
So, it's purely marketting. "Linux people" aren't used to having things sold to them with hype (except for Mountain Dew and crap from ThinkGeek), but it works for just about every other kind of consumer.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
From the lindows FAQ:
Question
Can I allow my friends to have a copy of any software I obtain?
Answer
The Lindows.com Insider program is designed to be exclusive to the individual that signs up. As an Insider member, we ask that you not distribute copies of the LindowsOS to other individuals and that you abide by the end user license agreement that comes with our software.
Damn: I was looking for someone to give me a copy of KDE or GImp. I need to be l33t.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Steve Franklin wrote:
;)
> Hey, you wanna swim with the sharks, ya gotta
> learn a thing or three from them.
A little nurse shark that wants to swim with Great Whites is only going to learn what the inside of a shark's belly is like. Which is to the good, as we don't need anymore Great Whites.
> Considering the track record of the opposition,
> I fail to understand all the carping about
> Lindows' honesty. This is going to get down and
> dirty, as they say, and I wouldn't necessarily
> write these guys off yet.
We need alternatives to Microsoft (and the media sharks, which AOL/TW is one), and the alternatives need to not be smaller carbon copies. We need choice, not more of the same greed and callousness. Lindows' sliminess does nothing to improve the quality of options customers have. Worse, it gives Linux a bad rep.
> As for AOL's reaction, I'd be more willing to
> believe that they're just scared of Big Bad
> Billy than that they're concerned with their
> reputation.
No, they are not scared. AOL/TW has happily stood in Microsoft's way a number of time in the past year or so. AOL/TW would be, by far, the larger party in any deal with Lindows. They would want to dictate terms, not have some pipsqueak claim a bunch of rubbish based on clicking a button on their website.
> Make the Dragon of Redmond sweat a little.
Apple and the real corporate partners (can you say IBM) of real Linux are doing their job just fine. They don't need a sleazy two bit rip off butting in.
Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
Godzilla: Stomp!
Naw, most of the industry is a little scummy. Lindows just doesn't seem to understand that you can only BS so long before people stop listening to you.
There's a great article in this month's WIRED about why AOL should re-envision itself as a broadband provider. (The argument largely being that AOL is 95% dialup, and dialup is slowly but surely going the way of the dinosaur.)
An AOL brand of Linux could really complement this strategy. AOL could offer even lower cost computers with a broadband commitment, the same way cellphone service providers offer discounted cellphones when you sign up for a service plan.
For all the grandmas, moms, dads, and technophobes out there, an 800 Mhz box for $100 with a broadband connection could really drive some upgrades, if AOL did it right.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I have one of those $199 Microtel PCs (scrubbed Lindows from it, obviously, as I'm a Slackware person.) It's properly set up, including (if you really want to do it that way) a cheap old analogue link between the CDROM and the "sound card" (actually, it's a VIA motherboard with the sound hardware built in.) I opened it up very early so I could put in my TV card and an old SCSI card with a DVD drive.
Actually I really can't fault the way it's set up. The only annoyance I have (and it may be the way I'm doing things) is that the 800MHz VIA C3 CPU doesn't seem to be faster than my old 300MHz PII Laptop when it comes to decoding DVDs, which is to say not fast enough (using Xine and MPlayer 0.90pre8) I don't understand that, as everything else whizzes in comparison.
A bargain, and worth getting IMO. But install a proper Linux on it, Lindows is neither a great Linux, nor a terribly usable Windows.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And what about making commercials that mislead people into thinking that sites like Ebay and WebMD are services of AOL? I can't wait for the Version 8.0 commercials, when they claim to have invented the internet.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
with Gateway. Here's the first hit from Google.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's MUCH better than Lindows, doesn't have any "strategic" product placements, and doesn't sell as a PC from Walmart...
http://www.lycoris.com
And it's free to download, without a ridiculous "pay to update" scheme (mine ran just fine under VMWare, without having to set up any prepaid accounts)... Or, if you're so inclined, you can buy it on CD at retailers/online retail... Even without any customer support for the downloaded version... There's also a fairly large community available for Lycoris, who'll give advice on several platforms, physical or virtual (in fact, that's how I learned how to make it work within VMWare)...
I tell you, it's good enough to make me want to go down to Walmart, buy one of their $199 computers, format the HD and install Lycoris... And I'm a Windows user...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Hmmmm.... they're all ASP pages, I'm sure that means they would never use an MS solution if there were something more secure and free...
Hey, wait a second... what kind of servers do ASP pages usually run from...?
From Lindows President(Kevin) on the Lindows forum:
As with any company, you have press that like what you're doing, and those who don't like what you're doing.
Maureen O'Gara who wrote this article certainly falls in the "not like Lindows.com" camp. She has from day one not liked Lindows.com, and she has time and time again tried to short circuit much of what we are doing. For example, she didn't like the Wal-Mart deal and tried all she could to get Wal-Mart to kill their deal with Lindows.com. She called them, emailed them, and so on to short circuit the deal. It obviously didn't work, and to this day Wal-Mart remains thrilled with their association with Lindows.com. She's apparently doing it again here, trying to short circuit our relationship with AOL. Of course, it won't work. AOL is a HUGE corporation, and not every department at AOL may know what the other dept. is doing. Certainly, a "reporter" for the Linux press would have the least access to AOL or information about their plans.
As we have said many times, we don't pay too much attention to this sort of thing. We simply remain focused on building a great product. This reporter has been proven wrong many times already by Lindows.com, but not by our words, but by actions and the history of this company.
As for an "AOL Computer," the MSNBC reporter was the one who made the inference of an "AOL Computer." That's why the headline had a question mark after it. The MSNBC reporter was saying, "Hmmm...COULD this be an AOL Computer?" I think it was clear what the MSNBC reporter was suggesting, NOT reporting that there WAS an "AOL Computer," but that this could certainly be used in that way.
We stand by our press release. It is 100% accurate.
Kevin
PS: I responded as soon as I saw this thread. We're very busy, as you can imagine, getting ready for the General Release. When we're not on the forum it means we ARE working! Don't give this "reporter" too much of your energy, as I'm sure it's exactly what she wanted.
M$ bought a news outlet so it could shape the news. No news there, people have been doing that forever. It's a problem with comercial news. The fewer news outlets people have the more subject to abuse those news outlets are. The stronger the power of advertisers, the weaker the news organization. You can't get a weaker news organization than one that has litteraly been bought by one of it's cheif sponsors. Did you miss the news that M$ was going to spend more than a billion dollars to promote Windows XP? That kind of spending buys lots of favors at comercial news outlets. A free internet may take us away from that as the power of advertisers goes to zero as the number of news outlets goes to infinity.
The thread is correct to suspect that MSNBC might intentionaly create controversy between AOL and Lindows. Trouble in either house is good for NBC and M$.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Oh, that's right, Napster *was* a crappy product, despite the fact that it was one of the first of its kind, and managed to almost single-handedly change the face of music online. Napster was the cream of the crop when it started, despite the fact that it started to tank later on in its life.
Napster was written by a teenager, and his inexperience showed through. Most of the problems (like clipping the last few kB from most downloads) were fixed toward the end, but the architecture still left much to be desired.
The most obvious one that remained until the end was the fact that searches were done by un-escaped strings. Try searching for a song that contains double-quote characters (") in the name. Good luck.
I think that's the point of the poster you replied to - Napster, though it sparked a revolution yadda yadda, was not in itself a very good product.
See the AudioGalaxy client for an example of a system that worked well. Improvement was still to be had, though, and soem of the systems out now are quite excellent; definitely better than Napster ever was. In fact, better than Napster ever could be because the old mistakes held them back.
± 29 dB