Review: Lindows 2.0 Dissected

Bob the Knob writes "Extremetech has done an in-depth review of Lindows. The guy who wrote it didn't think too much of Lindows before looking at it but he seemed to like it after doing a hands-on."

Comments

Where's the Code?

[glamslam]

I support the idea of Lindows and hope Michael is successful... as long as he plays by the rules. So, the question is, Where's the code???

Re:Where's the Code?

[fault0]

If you bought it, you'd be able to get code.

Re:Where's the Code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken right from http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_license.ph p

"Some of the software programs included in LindowsOS are licensed (or sublicensed) to the user under the GNU General Public License and other similar open source license agreements which, among other rights, permit the user to copy, modify and redistribute certain programs, or portions thereof, and have access to the source code. The GNU General Public License (GPL) requires that for any software covered under the GPL which is distributed to someone in an executable binary format, that the source code also be made available to those users. Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account."

Re:Where's the Code?

[fault0]

I agree. The grandparent poster's attitude is what makes the GPL often impractical in non-free-beer software.

Re:Where's the Code?

[Negatyfus]

The grandparent asked a legit question. No need for name calling. I was wondering how Lindows' distributed the source code myself. Now I know.

Re:Where's the Code?

[Black Copter Control]

Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account."

I say breach of license.
Given that this is a commercial distribution, Lindows has two choices (quoting directly from the GPL text):

• Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
• Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [non-commercial binary distribution]

Given that Lindows did not accompany their distribution with the source CDs, they're required to make the sources available to everybody -- not just people with a lindows account.

Re:Where's the Code?

[Anonymous Coward]

My comment is,who paid you?

Re:Where's the Code?

[neitzsche]

Bullshit. This is Michael Robertson saying "FUCK YOU" to the FSF. He and his company are in direct violation of the letter AND intent of the GPL.

Your generic "Free software doesn't work" argument is wrong. The economy of the country is collapsing, yet companies like Red Hat and IBM are still around and solvent! Lindows should last, well, has already lasted too long (due to 100 million dollars from Vivendi universal.)

Re: I might try it

[Black Parrot]

> I'm going to initially recommend that they look at using Linux 8.0...

> Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time

What is wrong with this picture?

No install options?

[Kenja]

So what do I do if I dont want the AOL crap? Is there a GUI uninstaller (is it a package format) or must I purge it from the command line? Its all well and good to give an easy installer, however that's no good if I must then uninstall stuff to get the base I want.

Re:No install options?

[jcw2112]

well, if you are asking that question, then the base that you want isn't lindows. this is a distro for my computer-impaired relatives, not for someone who can compile a kernel without docs.

Re:No install options?

[Kenja]

So all "computer imapaired relatives" need AOL? Thats painting with a rather large brush dont you think?

Re:No install options?

[jcw2112]

no. i don't think that anyone needs aol (at least no one that i have met). what i am saying is that a person who would buy this distro would. and by virtue of even mentioning a command line for uninstalling something, you have removed yourself from their target audience.

i was just pointing out that this distro probably isn't for you. it's for people who pick up an aol cd at the target check out because it looks like a good idea.

Re:No install options?

[cyborch]

what your parent wrote was that HIS computer impaired relatives need Lindows, MY computer impaired relatives need to get hit over their heads with a hammer before they tell me that "you know stuff aout computer, so show me how to use XYZ product since you MUST know how to use any piece of software ever made".

Re:No install options?

[SScorpio]

Computer impaired people don't need AOL.

But AOL Losers are computer impaired.



Think of it like this, all goats are animals, but not all animals are goats.

Re:No install options?

[smcpeek]

You mean there are docs to help me compile my kernel? To think I've been doing it the hard way all this time...

Wow

[Ctrl-Z]

I just have to say that I'm impressed. Since Lindows has gotten less-than-rave reviews on the Wal-Mart special, I wasn't expecting this type of review for the standalone Lindows.

The only thing I have to say is that they need to pick a better colour scheme for their logo. What is that: seafoam green?

Re:Wow

[madfgurtbn]

Anyway, the less-than-rave reviews were for Lindows 1.0, but MSNBC.com recently had a nice review of the newest wally-world microtel $200 machines that was very positive. Disregard the misleading headline about it being an AOL computer. The article is really about Lindows 2.0, and mirrors many of the opinions of the new review today. See the article here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/813350.asp

What fun is that?

[Superfreaker]

>>it hides the usual kernel text junk that appears during boot I thought that was the only reason to use Linux!?

Re:What fun is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, remember when DOOM first came out and it had all this crap that it spewed out when it loaded? that was the bomb! i mean, it would've been so easy to just add a #define in their code to skip all that output, but damn did it ever look cool. the best was when it was loading some data or somethin' and it had all those dots

loading data [............... etc. ] ..

and you could hear your hard drive really working. i musta loaded up and exited DOOM a billion times just to see that load-up screen. good times..

Re:What fun is that?

[kasperd]

I thought that was the only reason to use Linux!?

No, it is not the only reason. But it is one of the important reasons. Sometimes I just want to know what my computer is doing. Haven't you ever looked on a computer producing no visible output on the screen and just wondered: What the h... is going on?

Re:I might try it

[rherbert]

You mean REDHAT 8.0? Normal people confuse proper terminology enough without us making it more confusing for them.

Renaming of applications...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the KDE/Gnome community should ask Lindowz ppl why they have renamed kde/gnome applications within Lindowz. This is seriously sick. For example. Ksnapshot. This click and run is basically apt-get in disguise, what invovation huh?

Re: I might try it

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, is this the first time they've gotten it right? :)

Re:I might try it

[fault0]

> initially recommend that they look at using Linux 8.0

Holy smokes, it only seemed like yesterday when Linux 2.4 came out. I guess the vacation this summer put me out of the loop more than I thought.

Re:I might try it

[Frothy Walrus]

I think I'm going to initially recommend that they look at using Linux 8.0

Also worth checking out are BSD 1.6 and UNIX 9. Besides, Linux is already up to version 9.0.

XGalaga

[Ctrl-Z]

There is one comment here that tends to discredit the review: "During testing we installed a silly game called XGalaga...". Since when is XGalaga a silly game? It's one of the finest games available on [GNU/]Linux!

Re:XGalaga

[MAXOMENOS]

Beats me. Of course, I could never get the damn thing to work.

Re:XGalaga

[Anonymous Coward]

try xgalaga -nosound

7 min install

[bjschrock]

I think the most impressive thing I saw in the review is that Lindows installed in about 7 minutes. My old Windows computer used to take about a third of that to boot up...

Re:7 min install

[Ed Avis]

Many distros (like Knoppix, or others which are adaptations of Red Hat or whatever) can run directly from CD. That would beat the seven minutes and also it would at least partly deal with the security concerns from running as root. You just need to use a partition (or 100 megabyte loopback file on the Windows filesystem) for the home directory.

Ideally, you'd put the CD in and start using the machine, but in the background the CD image would be copied to the hard disk for faster access. On the next boot you can mount the CD image loopback from the HD. And give your Lindows disc to a friend!

Re:7 min install

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this not flaimbait? Modern PCs will boot Windows XP in 30-45 seconds as long as you only load a few small apps at startup (e.g. not IIS/Apache or SQL Server).

Re:7 min install

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair he did say his "old" Windows PC. Windows 2000 could take 4 to 5 minutes from startup to workable desktop. The server version can take even longer. There is also a thing called poetic license. He exagerrated to make his point. 7 minute install beats anything I have ever seen - even DOS.

Re:7 min install

[qurob]

Ideally, you'd put the CD in and start using the machine, but in the background the CD image would be copied to the hard disk for faster access. On the next boot you can mount the CD image loopback from the HD. And give your Lindows disc to a friend!


CD burner, anyone?

Re:7 min install

[Anonymous Coward]

7 minute INSTALL, pinhead. Not STARTUP.
Do you fucking read or just spout your own brand of wisdom?

Re:7 min install

[Ed Avis]

How much of Lindows' target market have a CD burner, and how many would know how to use it to make copies of the distribution?

More people might be persuaded to try Lindows (or any other Linux distribution) if you could just put the CD in and start using it. And if the same CD can be used to convert several users, so much the better.

Of course if you do have a CD burner then there could be a 'create new copies of Lindows' icon on the desktop...

Re:7 min install

[martyn s]

I have a CD burner, and I consider myself part of the Lindows target market. Actually, maybe I'm not considered to be in Lindows demographic, but I'm interested in it. I've tried installing linux and it's given me problems here and there and it just wasn't worth the effort for me. If I can do a dual-boot on my raid 0 machine (which linux didn't handle well in the past), and not be overwhelmed by tons of new things I'd have to learn all at once, I'd definitely go for Lindows. I'm not stupid, but I just don't have the time or patience to learn how to use linux properly. I do know, on the other hand, that if I can get a linux distro running painlessly that I would slowly learn it and be as adept as anyone else. I just don't deal well with being overwhelmed all at once with things I don't understand. But if I had a linux machine that ran things easily with no worry, I would no doubt learn all of it (albeit slowly) by tinkering around with it. Whatever.

Re:7 min install

[Ed Avis]

I think if you have RAID-0, then you are not the Lindows target market :-(.

(Still, other Linux distributions ought to handle it... although it's probably easiest just to buy a new, cheap hard disk and play about with Linux on that. Ask a local guru.)

Re:I might try it

[luuc]

LOL as soon as I saw 'Linux 8.0' I could picture in my mind a response just like that. heh.

It's drowning in self importance

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never heard of a self respecting Linux distro pulling a stunt like that. It's only showing how little interest people have in it so they have to find a way to inflate themselves. I makes me embarressed to have read about such a insane attempt.

This is fine for someone with the right hardware..

[intermodal]

but lets see someone pull off a 7 minute install and get a fully working hardware set on a Compaq or god forbid a Gateway...who knows what crap hardware much of Lindows' potential market has.

Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[perrin5]

Although they appear to be saying that the whole "runs windows apps" was a load of crap. Perhaps there's a list somewhere of what windows apps it runs, if any?

I think the click-and-run feature is a bigger deal than these guys seem to think. They're targeting a market of people who are used to Windows, and many end users don't even understand "shortcuts" let alone icons. Click and Run may sell more copies for Lindows than any other service/review.

Also, running as root may not be ideal for Linux people, but end-users would just get irritated if they had to enter the root password everytime they wanted to change the system configuration or mount the cd-rom...

I agree on the firewall, tho. In the interests of protecting everyone, there should be some sort of default "safe" firewall that people can disable...

just my $.02 (a review of a review, what comes next?)

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[G�tz]

You totally miss the point. Running as root is really dangerous. It will enable something like our favourite Windows Security Flaws[TM] on Linux. This will give Linux a bad name.

To me, this distribution disqualifies itself by that.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[FatRatBastard]

Also, running as root may not be ideal for Linux people, but end-users would just get irritated if they had to enter the root password everytime they wanted to change the system configuration or mount the cd-rom...

Well, you can set up the CD rom such that it doesn't need root. As for the other things I don't think its that detrimental to have a password to change system configs. Both XP and OS X do this exact thing. And as others have already pointed out running root opens your system to folks who are going to have a field day on your system. Remmeber, if they're noobies then they aren't going to be reading things like system logs, etc. IMO better to be safe than sorry.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps there's a list somewhere of what windows apps it runs, if any?

here [winhq.org] might be a good place to look.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Anonymous Coward]

>Those who can, do. Those who can't post to Slashdot

That would imply that they CAN post to Slashdot, which means they fall into the first group after all.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[armchairlinguist]

You can set up a Linux system so that ordinary users can mount a CD-ROM. If Lindows is already set up to do so much autodetection, presumably it knows how to set permissions on drives so that they can be mounted by users.

Maybe it's not that easy to convince people that they need to have an additional protection before installing software, but I don't think it's out-of-reach difficult. Pop up a box during installation that explains that you need one password for every-day use, and one password for modifying your base sytem. Have people choose two passwords.

If people are always running as root, setting up multiple-user systems is going to be a mess, so this also avoids that problem. I think it would be a good investment of effort on Lindows' part.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[tigertigr]

Also, running as root may not be ideal for Linux people, but end-users would just get irritated if they had to enter the root password everytime they wanted to change the system configuration or mount the cd-rom...

As someone else mentioned, Mac OS X does this already. If you want to change major settings, you'll have to enter the root password. To me, it's just a small paradigm shift and the end result makes more sense than not having it. It's like having an extra step that asks, "This change is going to affect your computer a lot. Are you sure you really want to do this?"

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Jobe_br]

I agree entirely. One note: there isn't really any *inherent* danger in not even having two passwords. This is how OS X works by default - you create an account during the first bootup and the password you enter for that becomes the default sudo/Administrator password - obviously you can change this at a later time if you desire.

A setup like that is fine, because the user just knows that he has a password for the machine - when the system needs to do something privileged, pop-up a box, ask for the system password, and do your thing.

A compromise between total security and user-friendliness is a must for Linux on the desktop to succeed. I think a lot of things can be learned from Apple's approach to security with OS X. While it is not perfect, its not too bad, and certainly better than any OS Microsoft has released, with the possible exception of the most recent, XP. Don't know too much about XP yet, so I won't include it in my sweeping judgement!

Cheers.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Ed Avis]

If they sold it bundled with Crossover Office then they could back up their claim a bit better.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Ed Avis]

Why should there be a firewall included? Surely the right way to make the system secure is just to make sure it has no vulnerable services installed. I'd imagine that the standard Lindows installation has *nothing* listening on any port - not even ssh - so a firewall would be completely pointless.

Although their choice of running as root suggests that Lindows don't consider security to be very important, and in that context, a bundled firewall would be a useful marketing tool.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't understand the firewall complaints- firewalls don't belong on personal machines. firewalls belong at chokepoints on the network, when you want to protect poorly configured hosts on one side of the network from malicious hosts on the other side.

a personal machine doesn't need this protection, because it isn't listening on any ports (or at least shouldn't be). any port that you do start a process to listen on is something you want the firewall to allow traffic to anyway.

if you want to setup something fancy, like port filtering based on the address of thing incoming request, then you're not in the lindows target market.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[red_dragon]

Nope, OS X doesn't ask for the root password, because the root account in OS X is disabled by default. Instead, the user is asked for his/her own password, and the user's account has to be a member of the admin group. It does so via sudo, so if you've used sudo on Linux or BSD or some other system, you already know how it works on OS X.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[thomas.galvin]

Actually, that might be a better way to go, as far as newbie users are concerned. An applet that pops up and says "Do you want to give this program permission to change your computer? Yes / No", knows what the root password is, and can then su under the covers would mix some security with easy-of-use.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[tigertigr]

Heh, you're right. I've only used it a few times at work. Does it ever ask for the root password for anything? Is the root account just there for the unix aspect of OS X? That is, does a regular user who doesn't care about unix ever need to use root? I'm just curious to see if the way this is done in OS X can be done elsewhere, if it's a good system.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[jpt.d]

The permissions that are setup are a bit different from your standard unix system. A regular user can write to /Applications for instance. Which is a good thing, because the best applications are usually those which install by just dragging them there. But if you want to mess around with /System you better sudo or su yourself first.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Paul Neubauer]

Maybe it's not that easy to convince people that they need to have an additional protection before installing software...

Mandrake does this (and I assume other distros do as well). After a while it is not at all annoying, but rather reassuring. Since only the person(s) who know the root password can install things, it means less chance of someone else trashing things, intentionally or otherwise.

Heck, they could make it a selling point: Little Johnny has to get his games and such approved by Ma & Pa and they'll install things.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[ressu]

'I agree on the firewall, tho. In the interests of protecting everyone, there should be some sort of default "safe" firewall that people can disable.'

This got me wondering, there was no mention of what apps are listening on the network. On a bulk linux there is no need for a firewall, and if the services installed (which i assume that there aren't too many of them) that shouldn't be running there is no need for a firewall.

currently most software firewalls are just neat little toys for the kids, things that keep poping up with neat little notes saying you received a packet from somewhere. Usually there is no need at all for them. Also i think it's wrong to say there is no firewall, while the article doesn't mention wether or not the iptables or ipchains (or whatever) is disabled.

Although, i understand the problem. the beginners need a sense of security, some mention of wether or not they are safe, will make them feel safer.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[Brad Wilson]

It's not always inbound you're protecting against. You may end up with a rogue program trying to make an outbound connection, in which case a firewall that warned before allowing outgoing applications to access the net (in concert with an "approved" application list) would be appropriate. Ditto for a rogue app that wanted to set up a listener.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[pbryan]

This will give Linux a bad name.

I think it should only give Lindows a bad name.

Many projects/products are now basing themselves on other core projects (e.g., Netscape/Mozilla, Covalent/Apache, CrossOver/WINE, RedHat/KDE/GNOME...). So far, I haven't seen flaws in derivatives give their bases a bad name.

Perhaps someone could name a few concrete examples?

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[red_dragon]

Yes, in a way, the root account on OS X exists mostly for those Unixish aspects of the system that require superuser privileges. It basically is just a record in the NetInfo database and in /etc/passwd with its password field disabled (that is, there's an asterisk in it). Those applications that require root privileges (like some System Preferences applets, Disk Setup, and the NetInfo Manager) use sudo to gain said privileges. Everything else depends on the user being in the admin group (equivalent to the wheel group on BSD systems), like installing apps in /Applications. All of this is done using standard Unix security, and as such could be done on other Unix and Unix-like systems.

Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product

[G�tz]

That depends on which brand will be stronger. Lots of people I know, that aren't in the Internet Explorer majority wouldn't use Mozilla, because they cannot associate something with that name. They use the IMHO bloated Netscape 7 with the disabled popup blocker instead.

Many newbies speak of Linux 8.0 instead of RedHat, because they can remember the name of their kernel but not that of their distribution.

Lindows Bashing

[xp_fetchbeer]

I don't understand why the vast majority of geeks seem to want to downplay Lindows, or just outright trash it. It looks to me like the community should be happy with anything that contributes to the cause, which I had always assumed was presenting a viable alternative to M$. It's almost like someone who resents their favorite obscure band after they become commercially successful. "I was into Linux before Lindows!"

Re:Lindows Bashing

[Jonathan]

No -- It is more that Lindows (even if they stop directly hyping the non-existant Windows compatability) still has a misleading name and is likely to confuse the naive consumer. When these consumers find that their Windows programs don't work, they are likely to assume that it (and Linux in general) is garbage.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[egghat]

Perhaps because Lindows is built upon a bunch of GPL programms (Linux, KDE, etc.) and hasn't released the source for their modifications.

That's not what I would call "Play fair with the GPL".

Bye egghat.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[debest]

Add to the above the oft-repeated "run as root" issue. It's not just that the users may find themselves victims of viri-to-come, it also reflects badly on Linux as a whole once this happens. The newbie using Lindows will curse Linux just the same as Windows in this regard.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[armchairlinguist]

Perhaps not everyone shares your agenda of wanting to produce a viable mass-market alternative to Microsoft Windows.

The original purpose of Linux, if I understand it properly, was to be an open-source UNIX, not a Windows-replacement.

So I'd say that the people who bash Lindows because they dislike it as a UNIX are entirely within the "cause."

Re:Lindows Bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

lindows...linux...bash...hahahaa get it

Re:Lindows Bashing

[An Onerous Coward]

If you browse through their Click-n-Run warehouse, you'll find source packages. For example:

kernel-source-lindows-2.4.19
Linux kernel source. 25.07MB

toolchain-source (Untested)
The GNU binutils and gcc source code 27.05MB

But even if I could find every package, I couldn't download them all without paying $99 for access to their "Click-n-Run" warehouse. Furthermore, their "evaluation version" should also count as a distribution. In short, my impression is that Lindows is not fulfilling the terms of the GPL. If I'm wrong, somebody step in and correct me.

The simplest solution, I think, would be to allow free access to those source packages.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[NDPTAL85]

Yeah but you and the folks you refer to are elitists so your opinion doesn't matter.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[An Onerous Coward]

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.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[Hrothgar The Great]

Well, it's not actually a viable alternative to MS, at all. That's my problem with it. Lindows is just like Windows - except that it's not. See, that will always be the problem with ANY of these "let's do everything just like MS" people - in the areas in which they fall short, especially Windows compatibility, they will always appear inferior, period.

Yes, I know Lindows has various nifty features - but they're selling themselves on their ability to be so much like Windows that people won't be horrified by the complexities of Linux. This is not a good strategy. Why would ANYONE switch to something that's "just like Windows" when they're already using something that "just IS Windows"? It doesn't make sense.

The features mentioned in the review aren't going to convince anyone either. Because, as I said, they've gone down the path of emulating MS, as soon as they called their distribution "Lindows".

Re:Lindows Bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

No really, who gives a shit?

The original purpose of velcro, as I understand properly, was to hold stuff down during space missions. Now it's keeping your bloated pasty white feet in your $5 shoes. Quick, you'd better hop on Slashdot and delight everyone else with your witty opinion!

Re:Lindows Bashing

[maxwell demon]

Well, the main problem is the user being root. Add to this the fact that it doesn't have a firewall, and you find that it's a very insecure system.

Yes, I think it's good if Linux gets Mainstream. Yes, I don't have problems with GUIs (while I like Gnome more than KDE, and still think OS/2's Presentation Manager is not yet reached by any). Yes, ease of use if a Good Thing(tm).

But if Lindows, in this configuration, gets a success, then we will get an installed Linux base which is as insecure as the installed Windows base. And that is bad !

The way SuSE (at least 7.0) does it is much more sensible: If you start e.g. yast2, which needs root access, through the menu, a window pops up which asks you for the root password. Then yast2 starts up as root. And only yast2 has the root access, e.g. a netscape running at the side doesn't.

Now things needing a root password are things you seldom need to do anyway, so having to type the password in that case is not a problem.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[StevenMaurer]

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.

And who says it doesn't? Actual cost of distribution is a pretty slippery to define, but it certainly doesn't have to just be the cost of the bandwidth. Under any reasonable interpretation, you would also add in the salaries of the people reponsible for setting up the distribution, apportioned costs of machines doing the copying, the physical media (if you were going that route), plus shipping and handling.

Yes, to a college student, a $99 fee may sound abusive. To someone working in industry, where $250/hr corporate consultation fees is the norm, it's nothing.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[dubiousmike]

Shirley you're not serious.

:P

Re:Lindows Bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because anything bad that happens to Lindows is going to reflect poorly on the rest of the Linux world. When all of these running-as-root Lindows boxes operated by n00bs start getting (already are?) rooted and used as ddos/virus/warez2warez launchpads, the media is going to have a field day.
The poor n00bs will think, "I though linux was secure, so why does my computer keep saying 1 0WNZ0r J00!"
All of the hacker wannabes are going to start saying, "I was going to switch to Linux, but Linux security is a joke. I love XP!"
Or your boss will see the Newsweek headline "Another virus for Linux-based Lindows costs Fortune 500 company another 2 billion!", and then when it comes time for a server upgrade, he demands WinXP systems instead of RedHat.
Maybe that's why the Linux community is upset. They don't want to see the mp3.com guy wipe his ass with 10 years of hard work just to make a buck off of the Linux software and the Windows name.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[glwtta]

which I had always assumed was presenting a viable alternative to M$

That's a very common, and very wrong assumption. We are interested in "viable alternatives" (if by that you mean "better products") to MS, but really only the ones we use and like. While all this "Joe HomeUser can now homeuse Linux" hoopla is great, no one here really gives a hoot. See, Lindows doesn't give me a better product to use.

BTW, "the cause" has in reality nothing to do with MS, it's about software, and changing the way it is produced. In this regard (ie playing nice with the rest of the free software community) Lindows has been failing even more miserably.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[be-fan]

Hey, there is nothing wrong with elitists. If more people were elitists, and more people tried to be elite, then the general stupidity of the population would decrease...

Re:Lindows Bashing

[andrel]

In post 4387579 XP_fetchbeer wrote:

It looks to me like the community should be happy with anything that contributes to the cause, which I had always assumed was presenting a viable alternative to M$.

You have assumed incorrectly. Most of us in the free software movement are interested in having an OS system we are free to use, study, share, and improve. Like M$, Lindows tramples on those freedoms. Lindows is not contributing to the cause, they're detracting from it.

Re:Lindows Bashing

[CentrX]

People usually resent their "favorite obscure band" after they become commercially successful because when they become commercially successful, they are forced by record companies to change their music in order to have more commercial appeal. Thus, when your favorite obscure band becomes commercially successful, they cease to create the music you like, and start creating music that's just like everything else on the mass market. Once they become commercially successful, you can no longer get the music you like from that band, and that would legitimately cause resentment for "selling out."

The same can be true of Lindows. When a distribution like Lindows is released, it contains many differences from past Linux distributions. Many of these differences cause the same problems that are present in Microsoft products, because the distribution is trying to be user-friendly at the expense of stability, security, speed, open-source ideals, or even of having a sensibly-arranged distribution. Thus, when a product like Lindows is released, it doesn't represent Linux or bring Linux to the masses. It might bring a flawed version of Linux to the mass market, and in doing so tarnish the name of Linux with associated consequences for its reputation, and it furthermore does not accurately represent Linux. What's the reason for using Lindows if it doesn't have so many of the good properties of Linux? It only ends up being an inferior version of Windows. So, your analogy is flawed, as is assuming everyone that uses Linux has the same "cause."

looks like...

[chamenos]

The guy who wrote it didn't think too much of Lindows before looking at it but he seemed to like it after doing a hands-on

new blood for the brotherhood and more converts for the cult eh? :)

Not surprised

[Mr_Silver]

I'm not surprised they like it for the main reason:

Everything just works

This is something that seems to often get forgotten within the Linux world. When people complain that something hasn't worked, they tend to get a response like this:

It's easy to fix. All you need to do is edit...

And in that split second it strengthens the reasons why people are hesitant to move from comfy Windows land. Editing text files may be easy for you, but for everyone else it doesn't sound like fun.

Generally whenever I've said something like the above I get bombarded with questions like "why do i need to edit this?", "what happens if i make a mistake?" and invariably "why do I have to edit this in the first place?".

Hopefully these nice UI touches will make it into other distros. I'm looking forward to the day I can plug my USB MP3 player in and the OS automatically detects it, mounts it and allows me to use it ... without having to hit the command line.

Or are there distros like that already?

Re:Not surprised

[entrigant]

I'm looking forward to the day I can plug my USB MP3 player [frontierlabs.com] in and the OS automatically detects it, mounts it and allows me to use it ... without having to hit the command line.

I've been able to do this for quite a while.. altho my distro is custom built it was quite easy to do.. so I would hop eit'd be in the more popular mainstream distros.

Re:Not surprised

[FyRE666]

Well RH8.0 has a lot of GUI tools now, so you can set up most services (certainly the ones the "average" user would even consider requiring) with a few mouse clicks. Of course, setting up vhosts in apache is never going to be that easy for a newby no matter how much eye candy they slap on it.

Until the latest RH distro I'd never even considered using a GUI tool to set up anything - had bad experiences before with linuxconf screwing up my carefully hand-written conf files - and I'll probably still find it quicker to fire up vi than launch X (even if the machine has a keyboard and screen), but for the average office worker, I doubt they'd even need the terminal any more, which is a good thing in my view.

Re:Not surprised

[Keck]

You sound like you're from the camp that believes Linux NEEDS to be user friendly. To me, the endless configurability is a tradeoff for the power and stability you get, among other things. And let's not forget the reason many of us don't use MS in the first place -- everything DOESN'T "just work" all the time .. and when it doesnt you often have no recourse. With an open system I *always* have the power to fix the problem, and it's usually not hard.

It's not practical for everyone to use an endlessly configurable system; a certain percentage of people are just not intelligent enough to understand an Operating System, let alone muck around with making it do what you want it to... Taking something as generally useful and broadly applicable as a computer + OS and making it into a TV-like appliance is a crime IMHO -- the public has been sold much much more power than they need, 95% or more of which is completely unused. (I'm talking about the endless numbers of PC's that have been bought so the Sexatary can play solitaire or so Aunt Betty can read email.. these things just don't require the power and complications that come with a full blown PC)

So in short, I think devices and appliances should be very user-friendly and computers shouldn't be confused for appliances, or used in their place. Trying to do so is like slamming a 300m Diameter cylinder into a 2cm x 2cm rectangular hole..

Re:Not surprised

[asciiRider]

It's interesting to me that a user can use Microsoft Office 2000 but we can't expect them to edit a text file????

So it's not the editing of the file that is the problem. It's the the product doesn't work out of the box - you have to fix it before you can begin -using- it.

Re:Not surprised

[British]

That's because you can make a typo while writing a letter to grandma, and your system will still boot up afterward. Not so with .INI files and such.

Re:Not surprised

[Mr. Shiny And New]

You sound like you're from the camp that believes Linux NEEDS to be user friendly. To me, the endless configurability is a tradeoff for the power and stability you get, among other things. And let's not forget the reason many of us don't use MS in the first place -- everything DOESN'T "just work" all the time .. and when it doesnt you often have no recourse. With an open system I *always* have the power to fix the problem, and it's usually not hard.

Don't forget that your ability to configure/fix the system by hand does not mutually exclude my ability to use a gui for some or all system administration. Most programs' config files are just a set of stored data; it's usually easy to slap a gui on it. Some programs have more complicated config files that resemble code; these are harder to automate. But you can't tell me that the Samba SWAT tool makes it impossible for me to edit my SMB.CONF file by hand.

The thing that's important is that the GUI should be available for people who are just starting out. I used to use a gui for some config files, and now I edit the source by hand because it's often faster. But the Mandrake system setup tool or the KDE control center sure make it easy to change a whole pile of settings all at once. So even if they aren't NEEDED, they are still an added value. And that value is more important when your users know less.

Finally, about your comment re: appliances. Yes, embedded or appliance-like devices need to be totally user-friendly etc. But that doesn't mean that there can't be "advanced" options or true configurability. User-friendliness is really about programmer attention to detail, and understanding your target audience. It's not really about whether you're making a cell-phone, a PVR, or a network administration tool.

Re:Not surprised

[drdanny_orig]

Um....why is it that we've allowed Bill Gates to set the bar so low? Why is it so unreasonable that "normal" people learn some lore and acquire a bit of geekiness in order to run a computer? Honestly, I don't see why it's a benefit to anyone that my mom can fire up a PC and use AOL. She can make my life hell using the tried and true telephone: if you give her anything easier, she might just turn on YOU! Hah...didn't think of that, did you?

Re:Not surprised

[RatBastard]

Can you adjust the timing chain in your car? Rebuild the fuel injectors? Replace the rings? Drop the transmission and replace the clutch? No? Then why the hell are you driving a car?

The days when you needed to be youir own mechanic in order to drive car have been over for decades. The days when you had to be a computer programmer in order to use a computer are over.

To most people a computer is simply a tool to get a job done. They don;t want to spend the time and energy fixing the tool, they want to use the tool to get their work done. Until Linux becomes as easy to use, setup, configure, etc... (that means that a user never has to touch ANY text files, be they .rc files or menu-lists for your windows manager) Microsoft will remaiin King.

Re:Not surprised

[iabervon]

I think that Linux does need to be user friendly, but not by losing configurability. The ideal would be for every file that you hadn't editted yet contain values that "just work". If those values aren't right, it must be because you want it to do something really complicated; then you can edit the files. Ideally, once you'd editted the files, a program would check whether your new version could possibly work and fall back on a backup of the previous working version if it can't.

And ideally, it would be the autoconfigurator that would use the endless configurability in most cases. Consider XFree86. It used to be that you set all of the monitor timings for your display modes; these days, it just knows how to do most useful resolutions nicely for your system. But, if you're really picky, you can tune the timings by hand. Having done the old way a couple of times, I know how to do it and I know how good I can make it. But I haven't felt the need to tune it for a while, because I've been happy with the defaults. I'm still glad to know, however, that I could change it if I wanted a slightly different refresh rate.

Re:Not surprised

[dildatron]

> Can you adjust the timing chain in your car? Rebuild the fuel injectors? Replace the rings? Drop the transmission and replace the clutch? No? Then why the hell are you driving a car?

Uhh, if you adjust the timing chain, you are probably gonna cause some serious damage to your engine. Adjusting the timing is different that adjusting the timing chain (or belt).

Nobody rebuilds fuel injectors, they replace them.

Rings are not hard to replace, just quite a bit of labor.

Replacing the clutch is pretty easy.

All of your examples could be completed by someone with some basic mechanical ability and a good manual. Linux asks nothing more.

Re:Not surprised

[be-fan]

But do you know how to change your tires? Replace gaskets? Fold down the rear seat? Replace a broken tail-light? Use the wipers? These are basic things you should know how to do in order to (safely) drive a car. I agree that the average user doesn't need to be a programmer, but requiring a basic understanding of what everything is and what parts do what isn't far-feteched and should be expected.

Re:Not surprised

[MechaStreisand]

And with your nitpicking, you missed the point entirely. Should you have to be able to do any of those things to drive a car? By no means. So why should you have to be a programmer just to use a computer?

Your way, people have to read manuals and learn how to do new things. The Microsoft (and Lindows) way, more is done for them so they don't have to: they can just use the computer. Which way do you think the average computer user prefers?

Re:Not surprised

[bazmonkey]

I just don't see why this point is always drawn on... and on, and on.

Linux is not an OS, it's not a corporate structure where you can send strongly-worded complaints with a lot of money and expect to see something happen. Linux is an unwieldy beast, the only living *NIX alive on the x86 platform.

Things are done in text files. That's the idea.

Ok, so it looks like a lot of work, it might be a little difficult for a normal user. Dude, that's why there's admins. Yeah, Windows doesn't need an admin. Great. Did someone say Linux was a Windows drop-in replacement??? I must've missed that part. Last I heard Linux was a free UNIX-like implementation. UNIX needs an admin. Linux needs an admin.

The thing with Linux is that programmers and developers have to be willing to work for free. You don't need people complaining because the newest codec that someone created, without the NDA-sealed specs, in his spare time, FOR FREE, didn't work perfectly when they were watching their streaming porn.

It's not an elitist thing, it's a practicality thing. If you're not going to contribute to the OSS movement, the last thing you should be doing is complaining. And if you wanna get into the "Hey, I paid money for this thing, I want it to work!" argument: 1) You paid for text support. Use it. And, 2) You should look out for what you buy. If a crappy distro coerced you to buy their OS, then you're a crappy shopper.

Geez, and you'd think that corporate, conglomerate America would teach you to shop correctly.

Spotty Perfermance

[gurnb]

Although the Click-N-Run Warehouse for Lindows is a great idea in theory, real-world users will run smack into the many ragged edges of open-source software. None of the Click-N-Run applications have been developed by Lindows.com, the creator of the Lindows operating system; the company is merely gathering open-source software from elsewhere on the Web and putting it one place for easy access by LindowsOS users.
I downloaded several Click-N-Run applications, using my cable modem connected to the Microtel PC through my home network. The downloads were fast and the installation always unfolded smoothly.

But the applications themselves were a decidedly mixed bag.

I first tried out GIMP, a photo-editing program that strives to match the popular Adobe Photoshop. GIMP did indeed have many Photoshop features, and even copied the look of many Photoshop icons, but the onscreen instruction manual was spotty. Instead of feature descriptions, many pages only said: "Our apologies. Sorry, but the help page for this item is not yet written.''

I then installed OpenOffice, the Linux response to Microsoft Office. Again, the look and feel of OpenOffice closely resembled its better known cousin, and the program did succeed in opening Microsoft Word and PowerPoint documents. But OpenOffice didn't include the same fonts as my documents, forcing the program to select alternate fonts that messed up the spacing between words. When I fixed the spacing and re-opened the documents in Word and PowerPoint, the spacing was now messed up by the return to the original font.

I also tried instant messaging. The first program listed in the instant messaging category of the Click-N-Run Warehouse was Kinkatta Instant Messenger, which claimed compatibility with the very popular America Online Instant Messenger, also known as AIM. But Kinkatta didn't work with my AIM account and I only discovered why in exploring Kinkatta's Web site: a technical change by AOL in February is blocking Kinkatta from communicating with AIM.

So I had to download the second instant messaging program on the Click-N-Run list, called GAIM, to make the AIM connection.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[Doomdark]

... But OpenOffice didn't include the same fonts as my documents, forcing the program to select alternate fonts that messed up the spacing between words.
When I fixed the spacing and re-opened the documents in Word and PowerPoint, the spacing was now messed up by the return to the original font.

No offense but this is an area where not much more can be done. You are taking in "alien" content, modifying it natively, then once again converting to alien format. These kinds of conversions are lossy by nature, esp. since MS Office formats are proprietary ancient messy "standard" (proprietary although not secret any more). This is especially true with layout related information, as file format doesn't really define how to use information; and also because fonts themselves usually can not be freely shipped. To get truly ubiquitous precise layout, Postscript/PDF should be used. In future hopefully a real office document interchange format emerges; OpenOffice has been active in this area (although it's not likely their XML-based format will become standard, it hopefully leads the way, showing how standard could be defined).

Unfortunately, for people who have to work with Office docs end-to-end, things will never be very easy unless they stick to using MS Office. But that's only a small part of functionality OpenOffice (and StarOffice providew), and judging the suite solely based on this feature is rather unfair for it.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[Karn]

I've never met a regular user who knew how to use About | Help. :)

My guess is that regular users won't know or care about how sparse the documentation for the Gimp is.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[tigertigr]

Instead of feature descriptions, many pages only said: "Our apologies. Sorry, but the help page for this item is not yet written.''

The problem is that with free software, you can sort of get away with this. Frequent releases are common and most of the users are more knowledgeable and more forgiving of little defects. Of course, the above wouldn't fly with a "professionally released" product. You'd have a lot of irate, paying customers taking their business elsewhere. If the app crashes once in a while or is insecure, it might be a bit more acceptable to many users than a secure, reliable app that's got incomplete pages in its online manual or a hard to use UI. (I don't mean to compare GIMP or Photoshop. I'm speaking generally, of course.)

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[TheScienceKid]

I don't know anything about this Lindows thing, but I know in regular Linux you can add your windows truetype fonts to freetype. If only I could remember the page it was on.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[IceFox]

Hmmmmm.... As the author of Kinkatta I am curius to know what the "error" was. That lock out from last February lasted about 2 days.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[613746]

I disagree about your document conversion comment. If you want to compete with Office, and this guys only issue is with the default font set, then why not inlclude a compriable set of fonts?

It seems easy enough, and had it been done, this guy would have one less thing to complain about.

bitch.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[b-baggins]

and also because fonts themselves usually can not be freely shipped...

That, right there, is a major problem with Open Source. A lot of technologies (including various typefaces) require the paying of license fees and royalties to use them.

Because Open Source does not allow for a revenue stream by selling software (don't talk to me about theory, we're discussing reality), there's no money to pay for the royalties.

That's why OpenOffice doesn't ship with Arial or Times New Roman.

It's a fundamental challenge to the Open Source model, yet nobody seems to realize it.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[Anne Thwacks]

No offense but this is an area where not much more can be done. You are taking in "alien" content, modifying it natively, then once again converting to alien format. These kinds of conversions are lossy by nature, esp. since MS Office formats are proprietary ancient messy "standard"
I'm afraid that for most people, the ability to edit WORD docs and then send them back to the person that sent them to you, is ESSENTIAL. As in, if you can't do it, you don't get to eat.

No excuses, this has to be fixed if people are to live without a real copy of Word. I know it stinks, you know it stinks, but Its true, even if it stinks.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[Joe Enduser]

... But OpenOffice didn't include the same fonts as my documents, forcing the program to select alternate fonts that messed up the spacing between words.
When I fixed the spacing and re-opened the documents in Word and PowerPoint, the spacing was now messed up by the return to the original font.

Hey, this happens in between different MS Word versions!

I love Openoffice.org, and I am proud of my list bullets showing up in MS Word as alien smileys.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[nathanh]

I first tried out GIMP... Photoshop... Photoshop... Photoshop...

I then installed OpenOffice... Microsoft Office... Microsoft Word... PowerPoint

So what you really wanted was Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop. But instead of buying these products you thought you could buy cheaper (free) "equivalents". Then you complain that they're not exactly the same as the more expensive products.

The free software people aren't claiming that these products are exactly the same. If you want Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop then open your wallet and buy them. Your expectation was that you could download a free product and get Microsoft Word. That's your mistake.

Re:Spotty Perfermance

[Doomdark]

So true. When we tested Word import capability in -99 or so, we tried 3 products; different version of Word (ie. later version reading output from older one) on Windows, Applixware Office on Linux, and WP on Linux.

Winner was Applixware, Word came in second, and WP was the last. All of them produced pretty close matches, though.

Nice review

[nuggz]

I thought it was a good review.
Points out negative aspects, but really shows what Lindows is doing right.

Despite all the anti Lindows crap going around, take notice of things they do well. Also remember the target audience too, this reviewer did.

7 Minute install with loads of hardware autodetection? I think that's good, but it isn't exclusive. I tried the gentoo unreal live CD, booted up an I was playing in minutes there too (although my sound didn't work)

Re:Nice review

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, when you booted up the Gentoo Unreal CD, you didn't install anything. You just booted. My WinXP machine boots in 60 seconds.

Re:Nice review

[splume]

How in the hell is this "Funny"?

Re:Nice review

[writertype]

I second the motion. Who tacked this on?

Re:Nice review

[winse]

If you've installed Gentoo, you would know that what he said was funny.

Re:Nice review

[Lxy]

I have installed Gentoo. I've also used the Gentoo Live CD. HOW THE HELL IS THAT FUNNY?????

Re:Nice review

[dildatron]

It's one of those posts that might be funny with sarcasm or it might be real. Can you install Gentoo in 7 minutes? With a modern desktop?

I am only asking. I've never used it. I am quite sure you could get the OS on there in that amount of time, but whether it would be good for desktop use is another argument that I don't claim to know the answer to.

I give it a perfect 10

[brad3378]

I mean,
just look how cool the installer is. ;-)

Re: I might try it

[micromoog]

They got it right the first time . . . but that was years ago now.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

The review seemed to focus primarily on Lindows' ease of installation and use. It mentioned the security concerns (such as no software firewall installed, and how it runs as root by default) but seemed to treat these problems as being outweighed by ease of use. Some might say we already have an OS that focuses primarily on ease of use, and not enough on security issues. Do you know which OS that is? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "Lindows."

Re:But...

[poot_rootbeer]

Some might say we already have an OS that focuses primarily on ease of use, and not enough on security issues. Do you know which OS that is? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "Lindows."

Sure, ok, whatever.

Which of the two do you think can more easily be fixed so that it better addresses security issues?

A-ha!

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, for home use this is true. But in a corporate environment, where most users just need email/web/office apps/etc., a competent technical staff will find it easier to install and secure than Windows.

Right now, our customized (security and application tweaks) Windows desktop installation, takes two CDs and one hour to install. And that's fully automated except for identifying the machine and swapping CDs.

It would also be cheaper, especially if you can negotiate a site license for the distribution.

The only roadblock would be convincing managment that Microsoft is not the only game in town.

Re:But...

[metallic]

According to the corrections mentioned at the end, Lindows does indeed have a firewall built in, but just lacks a GUI to configure it.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it Lindows??

Re:I might try it

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. 8-)

People, that was a reasonably subtle impression portraying clueless "consultants". And look how many bit, thinking this is a genuine troll.

(ie. it's like "What is this Gimp thing and can I run Outlook and Word on it? And since my hard drive only has 256 megabytes ram do I need to upgrade to Windows XP?" postings)

Good thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

It definitely needs at least 5 revs to be good. Who knows how stable a hybrid of windows and linus can be? The inherent unstability of dealing with the two versions of GCC, Visual GCC++ and GCC could cause massive library problems. You're better sticking to plain Linus 7.3 anyways, 8.0 is still beta, and you don't want to get a .0 release anyways.

Additionally, It hasn't been tested in a server environment, plus, I hear it doesn't use normal user accounts.

Re:This is fine for someone with the right hardwar

[Doomdark]

True. And this is exactly the reason why consumer need to have option of getting Linux pre-installed with, say, Compaq or Gateway... and why Microsoft is fighting that with all of their might, although behind the scenes.

Installing Windows on crappy h/w is a bit as well, what with trying to hunt down working drivers and all. It's just that with name brands this is already being taken care of.

Lindows and GPL?

[gorehog]

I've been lurking in the Linux community for a while, occasionally getting the wherewithal to try a linux install. I've had some success, my main problem has been the monitor configurations. Apparently, Lindows is making "Linux for Newbs" wich is a great thing. I would hate to throw a stumbling block in their way. Here's the question. Being a linux distro, and therefore under the GPL, doesnt Lindows have a contractual obligation to release their OS as a free download? Is free downloading of distros legally required or is it just customary? Again, hats off to lindows for what they are trying....but what of the GPL?

Re:Lindows and GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFM!

Read the GPL (it's in plain English mostly). Nowhere does it say that you have to offer GPL software at no cost.

Re:Lindows and GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Lindows is not, nor is any Linux distributor, obligated to offer a free download. The only requirement is that they give the source code to their customers. This requirement has a tendency to drive the price down and make distributors go for a free-download-with-pay-services business model, but it's just not required. You can charge whatever you want for your version of Linux, and you don't have to make your ISOs or your source code freely downloadable and that's all hunky-dory with the GPL. Just provide the source to your paying customers and you're fine.

Re:Lindows and GPL?

[praedor]

They do not have to supply a freely-available download. The "Free" aspect of Free Software is Free as in "Freedom of speech". They do have to provide the source for any GPL apps that they distribute, and I would assume that it is included on the CD.

Re:Lindows and GPL?

[spitzak]

Actually what drives down the cost is not that they have to give their customers the source code, but that they have to give those customers the right to redistribute the source code. Since some may give it away for free this limits the possible price.

It is also interesting that, contrary to popular belief, it does not force the price to zero. The fact that people are actually complaining that Lindows is not free is proof that you can sell GPL software for money. If the GPL made everything free than those people would have no complait as they would all organize and buy one copy and post the source on the net, all of which is allowed. The truth is that (whether Lindows itself is good or bad) there is value in finding it all packaged in one place, easy to locate on the net, bundled with things that are not GPL such as icons, and made by a trusted source.

Re:Lindows and GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good clarification. My "GPL for Newbies" screed was probably a bit TOO oversimplified. (For example, you don't have to give the source to all of your customers, just those that ask for it, etc)

Re:Lindows and GPL?

[supergiovane]

I suppose that I couldn't just buy a copy of Lindows and give it away from free. Let alone the Click'n'Run service (which requires registration), not all the software in the ISOs is GPLd. So I could take a Lindows OS copy, strip down all proprietary software and redistribute it, but I have no rights to copy Lindows.com's own code.

None would waste ist time in doing such a thing, I suppose. Lindows OS is for average Joe users, it makes no sense having a stripped down version and being unable to use Click'n'Run. As a matter of fact, it would make more sense to strip down a Suse distribution.

I think Lindows.com isn't violating the GPL (at least this aspect of the GPL) as long as it provides sources to its customers.

Just imagine:
Average Joe: Hallo.
Lindows.com help desk: What's the matter?
AJ: I was told to mount the CD-ROM, I jumped on it and now it's scratched. Doh, i quite forgot it: please can you send me the sources of Sendmail?

Sorry, could not resist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you rather have them edit the Windows Registry (TM)? :)

Re:Sorry, could not resist.

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time you installed a network card and had to edit the windows registry? When was the last time you swapped out your mouse and edited the registry?

Under linux, doing these things sometimes requires editing multiple, obscure, and "scary-sounding" text files.

Your cynical comments reek of unfounded MS-hatred that are just outright lies.

Re:Sorry, could not resist.

[Anonymous Coward]

not to be confused with your fear of mouse changes
in linux as the gospel truth.

Re:Sorry, could not resist.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been like, years, since I've had to edit the Registry on my Windows box. By comparison, it's been, like, hours since I've had to edit a text config file on my Linux box.

Re: I might try it

[Black Parrot]

> Linux 8.0?

> Retard.

Don't come down on him too hard. His consulting script read -

I'm going to recommend [technobabble] because it has [technobabble]

and that ad lib was the best he could do on short notice.

This could violate the GPL

[petard]

Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account.

Take the GPL Quiz. Lindows is required to distribute the source to anyone who has received the binaries and requests the source... not just "those who have received [binaries] from Linxows.com".

Re:This could violate the GPL

[RocketJeff]

Really, every thing I've read of the GPL says that you only need to distribute the source to those people you've distributed the binary to. If those people redistribute the binary then they have to make the source available - not people further up the chain.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[TheScienceKid]

I think a more important point is that it asks that "Lindows Insiders" don't redistribute Lindows as it was given(sold?) to them exclusively. Sounds like a GPL violation to me.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Knightmare]

Right... don't redistribute Lindows, they don't say, don't take the XFree86 binary we gave you and give it to your friends. They are talking about what makes Lindows, what it is... the customizations and custom software.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[tigre]

They can't do anything about most of the customizations, but they can control their custom software, like (presumably) Click 'n' Run.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Knightmare]

The customizations I am thinking about mainly, are things like the artwork and the logos, which do truly belong to them.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[g1zmo]

That makes no sense at all. How could Lindows be held responsible for what other people distribute?

Re:This could violate the GPL

[catenos]

If those people redistribute the binary then they have to make the source available - not people further up the chain.

It depends.

1) If you gave them the source when you gave them the binaries, they have to make the source available, if they distribute it further.

2) If you do not give them the source along with the binaries, but a note explaining how you guarantee that they can retrieve the source from you, your note has to be valid for all third parties, too.

3) If you only received a note according to 2) and you do a non-commercial distribution, you may pass along the note in order to comply (this, btw, requires the note to be valid for third parties).

For completeness, here are the relevant GPL excerpts:

regarding 1) above:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program [...] in [...] executable form [...] provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, [...]

regarding 2) above:
3. b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...]

regarding 3) above:
3. c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Scarblac]

That makes no sense at all. How could Lindows be held responsible for what other people distribute?

No, Lindows distributes. Under a public license (the "P" in "GPL", remember), meaning they grant rights to everyone, including the people who don't receive it directly from them, but through others. Or who didn't receive it at all and just want to get the source code that the GPL grants them rights to. Section 3b of the GPL is pretty clear about it: any third party can order the source from them, for at most the cost of distribution.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Software]

Well, it does violate the GPL (IANAL), but not for the reasons you specify. In fact, the first question in the GPL quiz says that it's a GPL violation :

He can put the source code on his web site, and put the URL on the CD

This is essentially what Lindows.com is doing. Lindows.com does not have to distribute the source code to anyone who asks (if this was the case, nobody would GPL their software, because the bandwidth charges might kill them). The "written offer" section 3b of the GPL is a little vague, but IMHO Lindows.com is violating it because their web site is not how they distributed the binaries. They should just put the source on the CD.

But this does not seem to me to be a terrible GPL violation. I think Lindows.com could very well make the argument that their site is a "a medium customarily used for software interchange" as stated in section 3b of the GPL, and that they are therefore GPL-compliant.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[ianaverage]

So let me get this straight...one cannot download Lindows for free? What if I don't want to be an insider or have access to Click-and-Run? I personally don't want to use this software...but would think of recommending it to others if it could be had for free.

On another note, I just checked buy.com, and they have winXP Home Upgrade for only $96--that is CHEAPER than this. So, why would any run-of-the-mill user (the target audience) buy this software when good old M$FT has cheaper stuff?

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Kenzai]

Well the "upgrade" requires proof of ownership of an earlier Windows of a version which is valid within the "upgrade" license. In addition you get little extra - I mean Home is nothing to write home about. With Lindows you get access to Click-N-Run and the programs available for download there.

But hey, who really cares - XP is not worth an upgrade from 2000 (the best OS by M$ since DOS), while Lindows gives people a chance to choose on their current hardware, while still being able to use their ever precious Office.

"Normal is overrated - where does that leave me?"

Re:This could violate the GPL

[ianaverage]

I am aware that Upgrade requires a previous license. I would think that most people out there have an old version of windows though. I suppose that there are some people that are still getting their first computers, but I would doubt that that number is very high. I do think that Lindows can do some damage with the Wal-Mart comps, but I don't see it, at that price, becoming prominent elsewhere.

Also, winXP Home Upgrade does not work with 2K, so you dont have to worry about that ;). It does, however, work with annoying old 98.

Also, I kinda doubt that Click-N-Run is that big of a deal for the general user. All they are going to want to do is read email, surf the web, and play some games (many of which probably wont work in Lindows). But the WORST thing going for it is that it is something new, and people out the FEAR change.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Black Copter Control]

How could Lindows be held responsible for what other people distribute?

Lindows isn't responsible for what others distribute. They're responsible for what they distribute. If they declined to release the source code with their binaries, then they're responsible to hand out the source code to anybody who wants it.

If they didn't want to do this, then they should have sent out their distribution with a CD full of source as well. (or put it on the HD that they used for the installation -- which is even cheaper).

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

If "cheaper" is your only criterion, go with Win XP.

The pack you mention also includes the requirement to register with Microsoft. You also give up control over your OS because the EULA gives MS the right to update your OS at any time, thus possibly breaking any software you may have. Google to find more goodies.

Now who^Wwhat is cheap?

Re:This could violate the GPL

[g1zmo]

What exactly is it that Lindows has a copyright on? Aren't they simply re-distributing software which is copyrighted by other people? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of those other people to provide source, and shouldn't Lindows only have to indicate where the source is available from the original authors or copyright holders?

Re:This could violate the GPL

[madfgurtbn]

On another note, I just checked buy.com, and they have winXP Home Upgrade for only $96--that is CHEAPER than this. So, why would any run-of-the-mill user (the target audience) buy this software when good old M$FT has cheaper stuff?

LOL... and what happens to this $3 cost advantage when you upgrade WinXP on a whole roomful of computers? You can install Lindows on as many machines as you wish...It's LINUX.

I doubt that they would let you use click-n-run on all of them, though. Such a service is a good example of a business model that could produce some actual profit in the land of GPL.

It seems that Lindows has the right idea WRT ease of use and the end user. It should be as simple and foolproof as possible to own and use a computer.

I disagree with the portion of the review that says who gives a crap about Winows apps, though. People want to be able to run their windows apps, and they will not make the switch until they can. Everybody has some special piece of software that they need. It is not just M$ Office. It's the 3D landscape software or SimCity or Quicken that they have been using forever and see no reason to switch. Geeks like to learn new things; most users do not. Lindows seems to understand this implicitly and is making tremendous strides in this arena.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[ianaverage]

I dont think that one can legally install the software on "a whole roomful of computers." sure you physically could install it, but the only people that would be concerned with mass installations would be people (organizations) that also care about being legally compliant. on the lindows website there is a link that someday will point to the group/organization licensing agreements. this implies to me that the currently license is for use of the software on 1 computer. so, sorry....it looks to me like you are gonna be saving $3 on the whole roomful of computer--if not more because M$ is sure to already have group licensing available.

I just want to say that I do not mean to be bashing on Lindows--I think that it is a great attempt at moving into the Windows marketshare--I just think that it would be a stronger product if the $$ came down.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[kasperd]

Does the CD with Lindows also contain sources?

If the CD doesn't come with sources, they must provide the sources on CD for anyone at no more than the actual expences of copying the sources to a CD and shipping it. Providing the sources for download is not enough when selling binaries on a CD. And providing the sources for only registered users is not enough unless all users get it together with the binaries.

For those users who download binaries, it is their own responsibility to also download sources if they are available at the same location.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[kasperd]

What exactly is it that Lindows has a copyright on?

Those parts of the software which they wrote themselves.

Aren't they simply re-distributing software which is copyrighted by other people?

That is true for a lot of the software in the Lindows distribution.

Shouldn't it be the responsibility of those other people to provide source,

No. The copyright owner actually have little responsibility here. If you sell binaries you have to provide sources as well.

and shouldn't Lindows only have to indicate where the source is available from the original authors or copyright holders?

No, that option only applies if you redistribute non-commercial non-modified binaries. Since Lindows seems to be both commercial and modified, they surely have to provide the sources.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[Kenzai]

Hehehe...still feel even from 98 (if tweaked correctly) that XP Home is a downgrade, though granted alot of people are elligble for the down/up grade. But as to Click-N-Run, I do not think it should be under estimated - my wife (certified Novell and longtime sys.adm. in a M$ world) found Linux (Caldera) frustrating, as newly installed programs did not make their presence apparent. Can you then imagine this for newbies or ordinary IU's - this is where Lindows differs from the other distros. There is familiarity bred into the Click-N-Run feature (Win Update anyone) and after the install you are given choices as with a Win or MacOS install. In addition you find a shortcut to the app. in a familiar place. Recognition is all (having been a Sen.Eng. in a Univ, enviroment - incredible how some of the smartest are the biggest IU's!) and Lindows is on the right step for this, with lots of programsreadily available for download and easily installed - included in the price! Of course would love it if the price got lower, but this is the most viable to M$ and Apple since the deatrh of BeOS (lack of apps) - for ordinary users and newbies.

Re:This could violate the GPL

[eno2001]

You are right. Geeks like to learn new things. But... Joe User will want to learn something new if it's better than the competing product. Lindows isn't there yet because Joe User doesn't care about stability and security (which Lindows appears to be lacking since it runs as root by default). In general, there aren't any Linux distribs that off the average user any tangible advantages beyond Windows. Windows XP DOES offer tangible (but to some pointless) advantages:

1. The ability to have multiple users logged in with applications running for each one. (Stateful sessions)
2. A VERY simple user interface. GDM was close with the photo browser, but XPs login screen is just a simple button click to the desktop. On top of that, each session icon indicates whether a user is logged in with apps running or not.
3. Clear and consistent status indicators (as a task tray app) for things like IM, Wireless NIC, Wired NIC, etc. As well as the OS hiding the least used task tray apps in a simple hide button. (Similar to GNOME's panel hide buttons, but within the task tray area)
4. The five or six most commonly accessed apps show up as the first apps in the Start bar. This order changes depending on how often you use and app. How hard can this be to implement in GNOME or KDE?

The point is that Windows XP offers benefits that a user can see over Windows 2000/9x AND any Linux distrib. I have confidence that the Linux distribs will catch up, but that's not enough. The real goal should be to offer USERS (especially in a distrib like Lindows) something that they can actually percieve as a benefit over Windows. Some ideas:

- Using SSHD and SSH as a backend, how about automatically encrypting all WLAN traffic and having this be set up from a simple GUI control panel. In fact GUI front ends to ALL openssh functionality would be awesome. And SIMPLE, not complicated. Why couldn't the key files be used in a similar fashion to the Security Dynamics RSA soft tokens? Setting up encrypted tunnels with a simple radio button app with options like "Forward web traffic from a remote location to this computer" or "Forward remote desktop (vnc) to this computer".

- How hard could it be to check for the most recently used applications and just start putting then on a Gnome panel or set up KDE launchers after X number of executions?

- Proxy root access. Gnome sort of does this when it prompts you for the root password to access certain administrative tasks. But, this is not organized enough. Why not group all administrative tasks that require root access into one front end app that any user can run. When IT is launched, they are prompted for the root password once, then they can do any of those tasks without having to type the root PW again and again.

- A GUI based 'su'. Windows XP has "Run As" now which basically does the same thing as 'su'. BUt make it better in Linux. Just have a K menu or Gnome menu "Run Command with..." item with a radio button to select between "Current user priveleges" or "Run with administrative priveleges". This obviates the need for a "Run As" since it would be availabel to any command a user would type. Or... how about having the middle click on a launcher run the app with root privs, but prompt for the password first. I have run into several instances where I wanted to run Nautilus, GIMP, Mozilla, etc... as root.

The whole point is to make Linux distribs better overall. I think that can only be done by taking advantage of what Linux does best and using those capabilities in more ingenious ways that a USER WILL percieve.

Desktop Snapshot

[no soup for you]

So if you're anything like me, and you wouldn't admit it if you were, you clicked on the desktop picture in the review and thought 'Wow, that really does look exactly like windows 2000, Media Player and everything.'

Little did my small friday brain realize, it was a picture of what it looked like inserting the Lindows CD onto a running Windows machine. Here I thought we were getting away from windows machine, but I digress.

The real image on a Lindows desktop is located here

Re:Desktop Snapshot

[GiBBerishLife]

your rather dumb if you couldnt figure that out cause i did. its obvious its the CD autorun.

Re:Desktop Snapshot

[supergiovane]

Speaking of dumb people, I looked at the Lindows desktop picture link. Then I decided it was time to stop wasting time on Slashdot and go back to work, and I clicked on the start menu to open an FTP program. The problem is, I clicked the start menu in the picture!

Re:Desktop Snapshot

[crivens]

You too eh? :)

Re:I might try it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Jack, is Steve Woston still working for you? The last time I heard from him, you guys were having a bit of an argument over an O(log N) algorithm to do the trisymmetry simulation on the Lambda box. You didn't let that smug bastard get his way, did you?

Dear god....

[emars]

Just... please. Change the name. I can't stand "Lindows". It sounds so trite. How about something better. Like "clOS/e" ...

Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds cool. Where can I get the source code for the GPL/LGPL components?

Re:Source

[L1nUx h4x0r]

Well, you can download the source to the GAIM component from http://gaim.sourceforge.net/
You can get the base of the GUI from http://www.kde.org/

Is there a particular component that you would like? I'm sure I can help you find it.

It is now my desktop of choice

[codepunk]

I have been using linux for over 5 years and I admin linux clusters for a living but on my desktop I now use only lindows 2.0 . I do tweek mine to run as a user vs root and I remove the click and run garbage. What is left is a very souped up and productive debian environment. If you need software you will be pleased to find that apt-get is available for your use. Do yourselves a favor and test drive it I think you will come to love it.

Re:It is now my desktop of choice

[Ian Bicking]

If you've made those changes, what's the advantage over Debian?

I can seriously imagine using this to install Debian, and then basically turning it back into a Debian machine. Is that how you are using it?

Re:It is now my desktop of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wanted to try Debian but the install sucks. Maybe this will allow me to apt-get with everyone else.

Re:It is now my desktop of choice

[HiThere]

Other choices for apt-get:
Libra-Net
Red Hat (see http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org )

I'm sure that there are others, but I've tried those two.

Root default

[buzzdecafe]

I read somewhere (perhaps Slashdot?) that Lindows runs as root by default. I actually verified this by posting a question on Lindows.com. Here's the question, and the reply I got:

"I read somewhere that Lindows runs with root access default. Is that true? If so, don't you think that's a dangerous thing to do?"

"Response (Mark) 10/02/2002 05:55 PM

"This is true but you do have the option to add users. We are also working on getting the root default removed.

"The Lindows.com Support Team"

"all distros"?

[armchairlinguist]

From the review: All distros should come multimedia-ready, with everything configured to work right out of the box, with no extra downloading. All of them? Even server-configuration distros? Even distros whose whole point is a minimal install? Pretty silly reviewers.

Greatest Innovation and Greatest Mistake

[syrupMatt]

IMHO, the greatest feature of Lindows is Click-N-Run. In my experience of introducing users, even fellow geeks, to linux, the #1 barrier of entry was "how do I isntall software x, y, z". Even after explaining red hat's rpm and apt-get (as well as methods via console), they still miss the convienence of just double clicking an installer and having the work done for them.

However, the prices they are planning on charging for this may prove to be the thing that makes Lindows yet another irrelevant attempt for linux to break into the mainstream desktop market. According to the article IIRC, they are planning on up'ing the price to $130 per year, albeit for seemingly unlimited use. This is going to be a turn off to the Linux/Lindows newbie (and Microsoft convert), who is going to essentially say "i have to pay $130 for just being able to install software easily?!?"

Re:Greatest Innovation and Greatest Mistake

[Ian Bicking]

The other side of the coin, though, is that Click-N-Run, unlike the similarly priced Windows, actually provides functional applications. This isn't just about installing applications easily, it's about having a bunch of applications available to use. $130 isn't a bad price.

But all the more reason Lindows won't market to Linux users -- we already know all those applications exist, and we aren't going to pay extra for them. But Windows users don't know that. They won't necessarily consider the situation as free-but-hard, or expensive-but-easy -- and even if they do, isn't that why many haven't switched to Linux earlier?

Re:Greatest Innovation and Greatest Mistake

[The Cydonian]

IMHO, the greatest feature of Lindows is Click-N-Run. In my experience of introducing users, even fellow geeks, to linux, the #1 barrier of entry was "how do I isntall software x, y, z". Even after explaining red hat's rpm and apt-get (as well as methods via console), they still miss the convienence of just double clicking an installer and having the work done for them.

Funny, you didn't mention the ease of double-clicking on the Ximian Red Carpet icon.

Re:Greatest Innovation and Greatest Mistake

[Dan Crash]

IMHO, the greatest feature of Lindows is Click-N-Run.

I haven't used Lindows yet, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that the biggest barrier to Linux on the desktop is installing new software. Click-n-run sounds like a godsend.

The $99 - $130 yearly price tag, though, is going to kill any competitive advantage Lindows might have had. If you check out Walmart.com, you'll find that the difference between a Microtel PC with Lindows and a Microtel PC with XP is $100.

If Joe and Jane User buy the XP box, they pay $100 one time and can easily install and use the most popular software out there. If they buy the Lindows box, they have to pay $130 *every* year, and they still won't be able to do everything a Windows user can do. (They won't get to view Quicktime or Windows Media unless they purchase the Crossover Plugin, for instance.)

All of this conspires to make Lindows a worse value than XP, which is a shame, since it seems like it's the first Linux distro with a chance of really breaking into the mainstream desktop.

I know there are some who would say Joe and Jane User just need to wise up, learn a little about their system, and download all the free software goodness that's out there. There's a lot of merit to this idea, but unfortunately, it's idealistic precisely where we need to be practical.

Most people don't want to futz around with their computer. They want to download, click a button or two on their GUI, and be running software. Until we can offer this functionality without a subscription, Linux isn't going make the strides into the desktop market that we all know it can.

Re:Greatest Innovation and Greatest Mistake

[b-baggins]

It's called value-added. It's the same reason I pay $40 to have some guy change my oil when I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself. It's worth $40 to me not to have to crawl under the car and deal with the mess and hassle.

The question is: will $130 be a reasonable price for people not to deal with the hassle of downloading and installing software the "old way."

Video Drivers

[SanLouBlues]

One thing I haven't seen is any mention of video drivers and 3d. Does lindows use hw acceleration on anything besides NVidia or 4 year old cards? I'd like to see some Q3 benchmarks. Also can it work with up-to-date tv capture cards? How about the nvidia usb-tv box?

Re:Video Drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, ask the Manufacturer, NOT Slashdot.

ExtremeTech has big monitors

[PunchMonkey]

The only thing we didn't like about Lindows: it defaulted to 1024 X 768 resolution. we'd prefer 1280 x 1024.

I thought they were going to say "we'd prefer 800x600". 1280x1024? Give me a break! There's still a lot of people out there with 15" monitors and low quality 17" monitors.

Re:ExtremeTech has big monitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus 1280x1024 is a nonstandard resolution. Well, nonstandard as in it isn't a 4:3 ratio like almost all others. So it will make your screen look distorted unless you have a flat panel or something specifically designed for the screwy ratio.

1280x960 is 4:3, and is a much more sane thing to request.

I'm more interested in the PC it came with

[Deagol]

The article links to a pcmag.com review of the Microtel $200 PC that Wal Mart sells (which these guys were going to review, but review Lindows instead). I've been eyeing these for my 2nd grade daughter as a good starter machine. However, the linked review is pretty weak. Has any thorough review been done of this machine?

Overall, impressed, but reservations

[brandido]

Overall, I am quite impressed by the reviews that Lindows 2.0 received - I was not expecting nearly so much praise, or for it to sound so user frienly. My main hesitation is in regards to the things left off - I want to set up a system for my siste-in-law, but we have dial-up. Downloading some of the programs that I want to have on there will be a serious pain - when I pay for a Linux distrubution, I would expect some of the mainstays of OSS to be there - Mozilla, not netscape - OpenOffice, not AbiWord, etc. Nothing against Mozilla, and AbiWord, but I would prefer to at least have the option of installing off the disks!

$Price ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The price did surprise my a bit ( ... Lindows hasn't been seen much around this neck of the woods). $99 for not-that-much-value-added ... hmmm ... anyone know where I can dl the ISOs and a 1337 cr4ck?

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you admit Windows programs are good but running them under Windows is bad.

Good thing you have Lindows, hate for you to miss out on all the fine Windows programs.

mod away, it's friday

Re:So?

[the_machine]

mod away, it's friday

Thanks for your permission.

Everything just works

[lederhosen]

And you got a totaly insecure OS running as root without firewall. Wonder why you do not run Windows!

Re:Everything just works

[HR]

* Editor's Note: After posting this story, Lindows.com contacted us and said that yes, in fact, there is a firewall in Lindows, and it is turned on by default. [emphasis mine] According to Jeremy Shaw: "The configuration can be modified by editing etc/init.d/lindows_fw."

Re:I might try it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I fucked him in the ass with a chainsaw. Notice how he walks funny now?

sudo

[gimpboy]

alot of these issues could be taken care of with sudo. the folks at lindows would have to create a pretty pimped out /etc/sudoers file and specify what commands the user can run as root (apt-get, mount, etc). then the user would never have to enter a root password.

Re:sudo

[darkonc]

then the user would never have to enter a root password.

and what, prey tell, would be the difference between this, and having them run as root?

I think that we're essentially running into the security VS simplicity wall. If you want a really secure system, you're going to have to give up some of the simplicity -- and vice versa. Of course, RedHat has it's little consolehelper utility that asks you for the root password before running stuff that needs root prives. That way, at least, the user doesn't have to log out and log back in as root and it's pretty seamless. That's as close as I'd like to get to a root login for most systems (as long as the program does some work to ensure that it's taking it's input from the keyboard, not some [trojan] pipe).

A user who really really really didn't want a root password, could always set it to (cringe) blank, or "password" (with the obligatory warnings, of course).

Re:sudo

[gimpboy]

the difference is that with sudo you can specify _which_ commands the normal user can run as root as opposed to every action they do being run as root. so you could, for example, only let them run apt-get to install software. this would prevent them from running

$rm -rf /

which they could do if they were running as root.

we have someone who does web development for us. occasionally they need to restart the webserver, but that's all. so i can give them access to restart apache and nothing else. i would say this is very different that letting them run everything as root. would you, prey tell, disagree with this?

Re:sudo

[zur]

As you know, it is trivial to gain "full" root if you can freely run mount or apt-get. Of course, restricting for example the mount command to specific safe parameters is possible, but might be hard..

Even if AOL has a local monopoly?

[yerricde]

But AOL Losers are computer impaired.

Not all AOL members use America Online service because they have a problem with computers. Some just don't have the $200,000 needed to move to a town where AOL isn't the only dial-up Internet access option, or where Time Warner Cable doesn't have a monopoly on cable Internet access.

Re:Even if AOL has a local monopoly?

[sqlrob]

I'm on TW Cable.

I don't use AOL (the service)

Re:Even if AOL has a local monopoly?

[Mojo Trolljo]

I have to totally agree...

At my old job, my boss used AOL for the 3 or so computers at the office. I used to complain all the time because there were limitations using AOL but for my boss there was one BIG bonus...

He traveled a lot with his laptop and at the time I think AOL was the only ISP to have local numbers in major cities all over the world. I don't know if there are any isps that offer this today.

Re:Even if AOL has a local monopoly?

[Weird_Hock]

I use Earthlink. I havn't been to a major city yet that didn't have a local POP.

Re:Even if AOL has a local monopoly?

[reallocate]

I used AOL when it was just a startup, before they called themselves AOL. I've used it off and on since then, as circumstances and location warranted. It's just another ISP, except for: 1) Size (POP's everywhere and marketing to match); 2) use of propietary software and a non-tcp/ip stack (irrelevant to their target customers); 3) proprietary content (good when they have something you want).

The /. droids routinely give AOL a kneejerk response because someone told them it is "bad". They get a passing self-pleasured moment without needing to think for themselves.

kudzu in redhat.

[gimpboy]

kudzu under redhat has taken care of alot of this. i'm sure other distros have similar tools. last time i stuck a nic in a box i rebooted and it found /configured it just fine.

Re:This is fine for someone with the right hardwar

[Anonymous Coward]

"God forbid a Gateway"? Ok, so there is much to be said against pre-manufactured crap (and much to be said for it), however I will say that where I currently work, around 75% of the stations are Gateways and the rest are Compaqs. I've never had a problem installing Linux on any of our machines, including laptops (we have a lot of Toshiba laptops as well). I'm not a Linux ninja or anything either, I'd consider myself a neophyte leaning towards intermediate when it comes to Linux.

I just don't like blanket statements that probably don't have a lot of backing other than personal opinion. :)

Name brands, pfft!

[MichaelPenne]

Having spent a few days recently on the phone trying to help the Dell tech support DUDES diagnose a bad ram chip!

I KNEW it was a bad ram chip, I told the three different people I got handed off to it was a bad ram chip, still had to run through their script of re-installing 2000 4 TIMES before their tech support would allow me to tell them how to diagnose (their "hardware test" app is NOT capable of diagnosing a bad ram chip, BTW) a bad ram chip, and send me the damn thing!

Grrr. I'm only buying name brands from places like Costco (where I can take it back for a full refund) from now on...

Re:Name brands, pfft!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. Build it yourself. If you are that good with computers just make the effort. It costs about the same and you know every part that goes into it. Buy your memory from Best Buy. They have a pretty lenient return policy.

Re:Name brands, pfft!

[yokem_55]

Why not just build your own system? It isn't all that hard beyond spending the time to figure out what components you want. And you get exactly the hardware you want, with exactly the features you want, without paying the MS tax, at typically a lower price, and a better overall quality system to boot.

BYO is the best way to go.

Re:Name brands, pfft!

[MichaelPenne]

DUDE! I don't get _paid_ to build computers at work. We're a production shop, a computer down means work behind or put off. A developer building his/her own computer = same.

So I'm only buying from places where I can take (one) box back when it breaks. Places like Costco where I can get a full refund and turn around and buy a new one when it breaks get extra kudos.

Places like Dell where I get to play Mr. Hand for their subgenious tech "support" dudes get no more of any business I have control over!

Re:Name brands, pfft!

[dildatron]

So you have time to wait and uninstall/reinstall win2k 4 times, but you don't have time to build a computer?

just kidding.

"Galaga" is a trademark of Namco

[yerricde]

Since when is XGalaga a silly game?

I'm just waiting for the XGalaga developers to get a cease-and-desist letter from Namco's legal department for diluting the trademark "Galaga" for computer video games.

My problem with Lindows Click-n-Run

[joshv]

It sounds like it is a great service. But is it worth $129 for two years (I know it's only $99 now). Why do I want to pay for what's mostly free and can be downloaded elsehwhere. Sure, it's more convenient and simple to use Click-n-Run, but it's not worth $129, especially when one of the major advantages of Lindows is supposed to be the fact that you avoid the expense of the Windows license.

Well, it looks to me that Lindows could turn out to be more expensive in the long run than Windows. I've got 5 year old windows installs that still allow me to 'click-n-run' self-installing free/share-ware.

What happens in Lindows if I discontinue the Click-n-Run service, and my machine crashes? Will Click-n-Run allow me to reinstall the stuff I already purchased? Probably not, because I didn't really purchase the apps, I purchased the service - thus I'd have to pay the Lindows makers all over again to get my apps reinstalled (don't talk to me about backups, the kind of users this distro targets don't make backups).

To me it seems Lindows is just as greedy as Microsoft, if not more - they are just backloading the expense, instead of charging the user up front.

-josh

Re:My problem with Lindows Click-n-Run

[jbarr]

If you consider the audience at which the platform is targeted, Click-N-Run makes a lot of sense. Do you really think Grandma is going to go searching through archives and mirror sites to find all the latest upgrades and new software? There are pleanty of new users and users that simply don't care about the technical side of things. Give them a truely point and click install/upgrade process, and they will gladly come back for more (and pay for it.)

Hell, I would pay for a service like this for my not-so-computer-literate parents just to let them pick and choose what they want. It might eliminate a ton of support calls to me!

Re:My problem with Lindows Click-n-Run

[Kool Moe]

Read more about it.
You don't HAVE to buy a Click'n'Run subscription. When you buy Lindows, you get a two-year subscription. Could be argued you don't want it, and should get a cheaper price w/out it...but hey, I don't want WMP with my Windows OS - give me a discounted price! ;-p

When the two year subscription runs out, don't renew it if you have no problem finding and installing the apps you want.

Your 5 year old Windows dist. offers 'click-n-run' how, exactly? Windows Update is the closest thing I've seen to that concept. Otherwise, you have to visit various websites, find the dloads, dload, and install. That is not the Click-n-Run concept.

If you still have a subscription to the Click-n-Run service when your HD crashes, you can dload the same files again - the list is stashed in your user account. If you don't keep up the Click-n-Run subscription, then make backups of the programs you do download. You said not to mention that, but I will, cause this is no much different than any other internet subscription service, eh? If in a Windows environment, a user subscribes to a site to get whatever (mp3's, movies, etc), then lets that subscription lapse, then looses those items - this is different...how?
KM

Re:My problem with Lindows Click-n-Run

[joshv]

You don't HAVE to buy a Click'n'Run subscription. When you buy Lindows, you get a two-year subscription. Could be argued you don't want it, and should get a cheaper price w/out it...but hey, I don't want WMP with my Windows OS - give me a discounted price! ;-p

If you buy the thing preinstalled on a Walmart PC, you only get 10 application installs via click and run - you'd have to subscribe for more. The current stand-alone $99 price comes with 2 years of click-n-run, but this will soon increase to $129 for one year. Not such a great deal...


Your 5 year old Windows dist. offers 'click-n-run' how, exactly? Windows Update is the closest thing I've seen to that concept. Otherwise, you have to visit various websites, find the dloads, dload, and install. That is not the Click-n-Run concept.

My point was that after the initial purchase of Windows it is still easy to find and install programs from the vast catalog of free stuff out there, because the relative uniformity of windows installation programs - where it is not so revolutionary to automatically create start menu items and install links on the desktop.


If you still have a subscription to the Click-n-Run service when your HD crashes, you can dload the same files again - the list is stashed in your user account. If you don't keep up the Click-n-Run subscription, then make backups of the programs you do download.

How? Grandma just Clicked and Ran. She doesn't know that openoffice is stored in /usr/local/whatever... She just knows there is an icon on the desktop.

If in a Windows environment, a user subscribes to a site to get whatever (mp3's, movies, etc), then lets that subscription lapse, then looses those items - this is different...how?
KM

I wasn't talking about MP3's and movies. I am talking about applications. Typically in windows, if I get an application, I either have it on CD, or download some sort of self-extracting installer. Those are easy to backup (and I do). Windows Updates aren't so simple to backup - but at least I don't have to pay a subscription fee for the service (at least not yet). With Lindows I just click and run. I don't see an installer file that I can backup, and if I lose the installation I must have a paid in full Click-n-Run account to reinstall.

Re:My problem with Lindows Click-n-Run

[nolife]

I am sure this was mentioned in another thread but a direct price comparision a Click and Run and MS Windows is not possible.

Windows does NOT come loaded with applications. There are some basic MS plugs to get you hooked on other MS products but nothing more. C&R has many tools that would easily be worth many times over the $129 cost if you bought the Windows only comparables.
With this comparision, the $129 is a very good deal in terms of overall functionality.
On the other side though, you could load $YOUR_DISTRO and get almost the same applications for free and install them yourself. Which will the average consumer rather have? I do not know but it appears that Lindows's business model depends on the C&R.

start-up speed

[physman]

Less than seven minutes to start up!!!!!!
Even Mac OS can't do that!
They must be missing some thing if it can do that

p.s. I like the autodetection of hardware!

Re:start-up speed

[mkarpinski]

Seven minutes to install...not start.

Re:start-up speed

[Knobby]

Mac OS X takes a little while to install (about 15 minutes while I have dinner on my PBG3/400), but Mac OS 9- could be booted from the CD and then you could drag the system folder onto the blank disk. That's all it took to install the Mac OS. About 30 seconds for a minimal install..

Compatibility with M$ is crucial

[ites]

Lindows should package OpenOffice.org and make it very accessible.
In-Your-Face compatibility with Microsoft is crucial.
This is the first question people will ask: "does it do MS Office?"
and the second will be: "Can I use Outlook?"
I'm going to download and try Lindows. I can spare 7 minutes.

Re:Compatibility with M$ is crucial

[pieterh]

"In Your Face Compatibility" is the way to go. IYFC. Can't you find a better acronym? Full-frontal plug an' play? (FFPP) Make It Easy Migration (MIME^h^hEM).

Re:Compatibility with M$ is crucial

[poot_rootbeer]

I'm going to download and try Lindows.

From where?

Re:I might try it

[An Onerous Coward]

You didn't get the memo?

After the whole 2.6/3.0 debate, Linus Torvalds, after a dream where he was visited by one of his bearded viking ancestors, told all the other kernel developers that renaming the kernel to match Red Hat's numbering system would "ensure the complete and utter domination of Linux in this century and the next."

Then he went off on a twenty minute diatribe about beasts, horns, seals, and trumpets. Which everyone thought was pretty funny. Seals playing the trumpet? That's the sort of imagery you usually get after a heavy investment in illegal substances.

Well done, Linus. Well done.

as an osx user...

[simpl3x]

i have to say that there are some pretty nice ui elements in those screenshots. i particularly like the click-n-run interface--i really did like windows 2000 but what the hell were they on with xp? perhaps apple is on to the same territory with the iapps, but $99 a year for .mac is a bit much. a business support service similar to this with online calendars and contact apps would be really useful...

Been there, here's what to do.

[twitter]

Generally whenever I've said something like the above I get bombarded with questions like "why do i need to edit this?", "what happens if i make a mistake?" and invariably "why do I have to edit this in the first place?".

Yeah, I get those questions too and I've got the answer. Don't cost your friends any services they currently enjoy. Use Linux to give them something better and more than what they have - not to take things away.

You need to remember why you and your friend would consider going to the trouble of doing anything different in the first place. One of those reasons is that problems in the windows world don't have ANY solution; Not a text file, not a registry edit, not a compile, nothing. There are two ways to fix these problems on a computer that once worked: a four hour windoze rebuild that looses all sorts of personal settings and data or a linux build. You generally have to do both. That's why you are there, right?

I can't promise everything will work in either world, but I can tell people why: Microsoft has discouraged hardware standards and has made it so every single device needs a unique driver disk. We all have examples of how this works and you can get into the details of things like winmodems, parallel scanners, networkd cards (which do work in the free software world!) and all that if your friend wants it.

It sucks to lose something, so I always suggest either a dual boot or a second computer for a Linux install. The windows side is always more trouble and your friends learn that in time. In the mean time, they keep using their old devices when they want. Three cheers to the good folks at Lindows if they really have made the M$ chunk redundant, but the root cause of all our problems makes me sceptical.

Conflicting Package ect.

[eadint]

Anyone trying to use Linux as an app has probably run into this more than once. I don't really know much about Debian. But when you have to spent hours hunting down 5 rpm's so that you can install one application there's no way in hell that anyone who's not a serious computer person would even consider Linux as an alternative.
An earlier post said cinerella was easy to install I only had to install an older version of libstdc. Well until every package is designed so that it can be downloaded and installed without any problems and extra-required packages Linux will not make the desktop or the mom top. It didn't mention any problems with that but I wonder what would happen if you tried to download cinerella on lindows. No firewall and root access is dangerous also. On a Mac you aren't even aloud to log into the desktop as root you can use the sudo command once you in. and root is disabled by default. If you want to install something it will simply ask you for your password. I like Linux and I think it's got a good future. The problem is that there are too many geeks that want to feel superior by having an OS that's too complex for most people.
The main hope is that lindows or red hat will charge more money. Develop proprietary interfaces and make Linux idiot proof. At that point Microsoft will become very frightened. There's nothing wrong with making money for writing software. " Its called having a job". Acting as a monopoly and forcing the industry is a bad thing " Microsoft RIAA ET all". This idea of software should be free, making money is bad, a chicken in every pot just doesn't work, " ask Lenin or Stalin. I have been using Linux ever since it came on ton floppies and there's no way that I would ever consider deploying it at the corporate level. Maybe for web print DNS and file server, but not on a desktop. Mac OS X has a solution they took BSD and found a way to make money at it. The BSD community prospered and got sufficient funds. IBM adopted Linux; it now has a possibility of wining back its share of the server community. I was finally so disgusted by the work and the problems involved with doing everyday tasks with Linux that I switched to Macs. When IBM makes powerpc64 chips for Mac the war will be won and apple will win. Finally if you're a geek that wants to enter a pissing match about how superior you are. Go get a Porsche like all the other identity crisis idiots (have you even contributed to the Linux community). So I say go lindows, forget about windows and follow the apple model it works. Charge money, customize your UI and start showing that " unlike my windows or my RedHat box, it just works" and you will break the Microsoft monopoly. At that point there will be an Msoffice for lindows.
So there's my two cents worth

-- Ideology and 1.25 will get you a cup of coffee

How does Synaptic do?

[bsharitt]

My parets were thinking of getting one of those $199 Lindows machines to replace their 7 year old Windows 95 box. The only problem is that the click and run is $99 a year and subject to go up. If they're so cheap that they still have a pentium 120 with Windows 95, I don't think they'll pay $99-$129 a year for software, especially since most of the software they still use came with the computer or was downloaded for free. While they may eventually figure out how to download stuff for free and install, I don't want them t rely on this sometimes shaky method.

There best bet would probably be apt-get, and it's not all that hard, but it still may be out of their league. The article mentioned a program called Synaptic, and said it was a GUI front-end to apt-get. While I don't expect it to be as refined as click-n-run, how easily could it be used by rather computer illiterate people(assuming I installed it and set it up for them)?

Re:How does Synaptic do?

[xiaix]

Buy the $199 machine, get the current special of $99 for the insider, then you are covered for 2 years. I recently checked out lindows, and though not overly impressed (too busy playing with RH8) they are making progress, and even have some commercial downloads in their click and run warehouse (tuxracer commercial edition for example).

Running of windows programs does have a way to go, but I was able to log on to and AOL account & use some of its functions right out of the box.

I don't like the windowsesque way it handles the MBR, but there is potential there, but it is not the same market as your typical debian user.

Nothing listening on any port?

[mossmann]

I bet X is open on tcp/6000. That alone is more than enough reason to firewall by default.

Re:Nothing listening on any port?

[Ed Avis]

You're probably right but isn't it possible to configure the X server to accept only local Unix socket connections and stop it listening on TCP port 6000? (Which should probably be the default in all distributions these days, IMHO - if you want remote X then use ssh.)

My point is, it's better to configure the installed programs (like the X server) securely, rather than leave them listening on all sorts of ports and then slap a firewall on top.

Re:Nothing listening on any port?

[Anonymous Coward]

LindowsOS ships with remote X connections disabled. (ie. --nolisten tcp).

Re:Nothing listening on any port?

[Lennie]

Actually Debian has this off by default and as Lindows is based on Debian....

etc. you know the drill...

Re:Nothing listening on any port?

[mossmann]

Wow. I'm happy to be wrong. :-)

Re: Click-N-Run

[hburch]

"i have to pay $130 for just being able to install software easily?!?"

What Lindows want them to think is: "I have to pay $130 per year and I get access to a gigantic list of programs I can use?"

Of course, the programs are available already (perhaps only most of them), but with more-difficult install mechanisms, but it's not clear to me that is obvious to the normal user or that they would care that they are paying $130 to get packages wrapped the way they understand.

Of course, this only works if Lindows work hard to maintain this list of programs, which, as has been pointed out, is not a simple task. On the other hand, that is what I view the $130 is supposed to buy. We'll see.

What is code ?

[Poor Master]

Sincere Newbie question .

Here is the code... FTP site

[ites]

ftp://130.94.123.237/

This link was shown when I signed-in and paid $99 to become a 'Lindows Insider'. (I'm so happy. Actually I see this as a $99 fighting fund contribution. Go Michael, Go!!)

Re:Here is the code... FTP site

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this fuss about GPL violations, just to see code that we could get elsewhere.

Re:Here is the code... FTP site

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks good ... I logged in as anonymous and downloaded 1 file.

I dont know if it is all there but lets say that all the GPL stuff is.

Then I would say that answers the question... it sthere if you want it.

New Lawyers....

[Tsali]

double-haiku

Lindows/GPL
license text debated like
dueling bum fighters...

since when do we need
to become lawyers for this?
Don't buy the distro!

/double-haiku

Re: I might try it - TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Metamods, this really is a troll - just a very convincing one. I got metmodded unfair last time I modded this guy down. Thoroughly read this user's history and you'll notice the pattern! "My company or I did -outrageous claim- with -NASA/NSA/Chinese hackers/other huge company- making me an expert in -wildy disparate fields- and here's my -trollish opinion or misleading statements-".

Business plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Advertise really good replacement for Windows
2. Keep all technical information about it away from people who are interested for a few months.
3. Don't profit :-)

Oh no he didnt.

[GiBBerishLife]

My God i cant believe he even put this in his review. if at all you call that piece of crap text a review;

it hides the usual kernel text junk that appears during boot. SuSE, Red Hat and the other distros might want to consider doing this as well. It won't bother experienced users Ok Asshole, let ME and other true Linux users tell you that what you call "junk" is actually IMPORTANT text that i would LIKE to see on my screen. i could give a damn about the new users. put up with it.

Re:Oh no he didnt.

[RatBastard]

Lindows isn't aimed at you. Put up with it.

Re:Oh no he didnt.

[Anonymous Coward]

i could give a damn about the new users.

And this attitude is why your beloved OS will die a slow and painful death you idiot.

Re:I might try it

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a troll. Read the user's history. He alway portrays clueless consultants with infinite experience in order to get a reaction. True troll.

Opera + OpenOffice + Lindows = MS Killer

[vannevar]

Nutscrape has fallen from grace since picked up by AOhelL.

Opera does a much better job dealing with the collective mess out there commonly referred to current Internet standards.

OpenOffice simply kicks @$$. I've even used it to FIX WORD DOCUMENTS that were created in Word, but format-hosed for one reason or another.

1. Open the native Word doc in OpenOffice.
2. Re-save document AS WORD DOC in OpenOffice.
3. Return document to befuddled Word user.
4. Happy Word user wonders how I fixed the screw-up so fast.

Hyperbolic Anecdotal Con[f|cl]usion: Oddly enough, OpenOffice apparently does Word docs better than Word does them. :)

Best of all, I also install OpenOffice and Opera for WINDOWS OS for as many friends and co-workers as possible, thereby helping them to get familiar with these tools as a migratory step toward moving them all of Windows altogether. As they build confidence that the tools will not interfere with their work in any way, they will be more likely to make the switch. The biggest hurdle to overcome is "but if I use XYZ word processor, nobody else can open my docs and I can't open theirs. Or, if we can, XYZ screws up the formatting of the other docs." OpenOffice is coming very, very close to completely overcoming that objection, even for the weakest computer users.

oh big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

you all suck, slashdot sucks and windows is your' fucking god.

Windows compatibility UNIMPORTANT?

[dpbsmith]

The name of the OS is Lindows. It's aimed at the general consumer. The whole point is that it's supposed to be a viable alternative to a Windows machine.

The reviewer mentions that not even Office 2000--surely the one application you'd expect to have been tested--will install. "We stuck the Office 2000 CD in our Lindows box. No luck."

And the reviewer dismisses it lightly: "Windows apps - Who gives a crap? ... "

Well, the average home user might want to run the Windows software that came bundled with his new digital camera--without which there's no obvious way to print the pictures he took.

Or the conference proceedings on CD-ROM from that last meeting he attended, that autoboot into navigation/presentation software.

Or the games and edutainment titles in the electronics section of Wal*Mart.

The reviewer brushes this aside blandly, "If you want to run Windows apps then just run Windows."

Right. And if you DON'T want to run Windows applications--then just run Mac OS X.

The whole Lindows premise seems to be bait and switch: sell the machine by saying it will run Windows programs and hope that the customer can be switched to Linux substitutes before they notice that the pea has been moved to a different shell.

Re:Windows compatibility UNIMPORTANT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Plus what about all those vertical applications that run ONLY under windows? What am I suppose to tell my customers? "I'm sorry I can't do your appraisal, cause company X who wrote this software, wrote it for a piece of junk called windows, and I use a real OS." Sorry - I need to work to live. And it's not for to pay $128 bucks a year for installing software. That's a joke in itself.

What do I want with linux? I want a rock solid stable, AND secure system. Not this sieve that they call winders. I'll keep trying Lindows, but frankly, I may jsut forget it and go with VMWare. At least there I can run my vertical apps, and still have a stable, and secure OS to do my other things.

What's REALLY needed in Lindows? Make a GUI that runs windows apps, but also gives you the power and security of Linux, and fix that install problem once and for all, without the greed aspect. Program installing is the only thing that's stopping me from switching fully to linux. I'm here to work with my system, not fight it.

Hell, why don't Apple port it's OSX to linux? It'd do a better job from what I've heard.

Shadowwalker Delaforge (shado719@icqmail.com

Add user?

[Paul Neubauer]

Is there anything about Lindows that prevents a (slightly more) knowledgable person from making a user account on Lindows? And having that user run as default rather than root?

Sure, that person might not use Lindows themselves, but if they're setting things up for someone else it's a fair bet there'll be desire to have it done right, even at the price of some added hassle.

Of the problems mentioned, this is the one that that looks the most dangerous. The others seem to be more matters of taste.

Lindows = Worthless

[greymond]

I still fail to see why I should pay $99 for a linux/wine combo.

Because it has click and run? Why not use gentoo for the more savvy people or just download program X from X's website? It will take the same amount of time to download and there is less chance of the install bombing.

The install thing being easier on lindows is total bunk. Grab a RH box off the shelf of X computer store for $40 (not to mention you can dload it free) and it's a nice collorful 3 click install for a noob or can be custom install for the more advanced. You even get free technical support over the phone and email support.

I don't like how some think linux will be more mainstream if we start charging for every little thing like M$. What next? User agreements and cd-keys for linux installs?

Hay - if I make an iso of my BYOL with wine can I sell it to the linux community for $99? If interested email me at getripped@off.dum

GPL and access to source (Re:Lindows Bashing)

[Hanno]

To clear up a common misunderstanding of the GPL. In brief, the GPL states that...

• if you use GPL'd source code as the code base of your product, you can still sell your product for any price you want and you are allowed to ship your product without source code

• you must, however, make the full source code available upon request to those who bought your product, and you are allowed to charge a reasonable fee for this service (which means, afaik, the copying and media cost, but not an added sales price)

• and - now HERE'S THE CATCH - you can't dictate those who have access to your source code (i.e. the buyers of your product) what they do with it.

  You can't stop your client from developing (and selling!) his own version of your original product, you can't stop your client from giving away the source for free, you can't stop your client from posting the source on a public internet server etc.

The philosophy of the GPL is NOT you must give out full free source code but you must allow access the full source code to your client AND you can't tell him what to do with it. This last part is the "free" in "free software".

Of course, as a result most GPL'd software isn't "sold" as a product, but as a service. I don't sell Apache to my clients, but they pay me for installing and maintaining their web servers, which is a service for them, not a software they buy.

E.g., when I modify a GPL'd software for a client (which I have done in the past), I charge my client by the hour for the service of modifying it, but I don't charge the client for, say, a license of "Hanno Mueller's version of XYZ version 0.1".

And since I have already been paid for the modification, I return the patch to the maintainers of the software, who may or may not use it.

Re:GPL and access to source (Re:Lindows Bashing)

[Scooby Snacks]

you must, however, make the full source code available upon request to those who bought your product, and you are allowed to charge a reasonable fee for this service (which means, afaik, the copying and media cost, but not an added sales price)

Actually, section 3b of the GPL states that if you distribute binaries without the sourc, you must

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.

The reason is found in the very next section, 3c, which states that you can fulfill your source code distribution obligation if you are distributing the binaries non-commercially if you choose to

Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.

Sorry for the minor nitpick. :)

Re:GPL and access to source (Re:Lindows Bashing)

[Hanno]

Sorry for the minor nitpick.

Thanks!

But the point still stands: The offer is given to the original client, who can then hand over the offer to any third party. But initially, any third party can't demand access to the source... At least, that's how I understand it.

Re:GPL and access to source (Re:Lindows Bashing)

[Anonymous Coward]

The offer is given to the original client, who can then hand over the offer to any third party. But initially, any third party can't demand access to the source...

Actually that's implied. The offer only has to be given in writing to that particular 3rd party, but the offer is made to any 3rd party. If you are aware that somebody has such a binary distribution, then you are aware of the offer, and are entitled to request a copy of the source.

Re:This could violate the GPL - I think so...

[donutz]

I think a more important point is that it asks that "Lindows Insiders" don't redistribute Lindows as it was given(sold?) to them exclusively. Sounds like a GPL violation to me.

I think you're right.

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, Section 2b:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

It seems to me that this means that you have to give your work to anyone who wants it if you incorporate GPL'ed code.

Everything Just Works (Cheap)

[fm6]

Which is pretty suprising. This is the first Lindows buzz I've heard that wan't primarily negative. The main culprit seems to be Lindows.com management and its missing business ethics filter. Perhaps the company has a first-rate engineering staff that being dragged down by nitwitted suits. Not exactly unprecedented.

The review is pretty intelligent, but I can't believe the writer is so dense about the economic issues. Maybe most newbies won't understand apt, but a $99 annual Lindows.com subscription is strong motivation to learn. And people who look at $200 computers are not going to buy expensive apps like VMWare if they can avoid it. Perhaps he's gotten too used to getting review products for free.

AIM

[IceFox]

Anyone else find it amusing that they saw AOL Instant Messenger listed in the Click and Run and yet they still took the trouble to go the advanced route of installing gaim from the command line? What is this AIM client? Is is from AOL? Is it from Mozzila? Is it some KDE app renamed? It would have been acceptable if it was part of a screenshot or something, but it was one of the 10 or so Apps they listed.

-Benjamin Meyer

Yes, he did.

[Anonymous Coward]

And asshole, let me and other true Linux users tell you what you call "junk" is totally unnecessary to most people. Unless, of course, you're clueless and can't figure out how to install properly?

And if you were a true Linux user, you'd have a clue and realize you could always check /var/log.

I had the idea of replacing the startup/exit spam with a nice graphical screen years ago. Feh, I should sue. Mah precious IP!

Re: I might try it

[Anonymous Coward]

prueba

Try Knoppix

[fisgreen]

7 Minute install with loads of hardware autodetection? I think that's good, but it isn't exclusive. I tried the gentoo unreal live CD, booted up an I was playing in minutes there too (although my sound didn't work)

Give Knoppix a try. Great live distro, loads crazy fast, even sound works. My #1 system rescue tool.

Greed. Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

$129 a year for icons? On a machine that was bought for $200 in the first place? This is exactly what's going to kill the whole arrangement. People who can spend $129 on silly software every year don't buy computers at Wallmart. If they charged 15 to 20 bucks, it would have been a revenu source. As it stands - it will be support headache. "I tried to create this icon, and apt-get does nto work - what do I do?"

Much like Red Carpet saw it fit to restrict their paid subscription to 1 machine. If I could use them to update atwork and at home - I would have been a paying customer by now. Stupid, stupid greed.

7 - Minute - Install

[smead]

HITCHHIKER : I'm a salesman. I'm gonna start my own company.
TED : Really?
HITCHHIKER : You want in?
TED : Huh... nah... I'm not, I don't really have any... you know... money... or...
HITCHHIKER : You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Install?
TED : Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Install. Yeah, the Lindows software.
HITCHHIKER : Yeah well, this is gonna blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7...Minute... Install.
TED : Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.
HITCHHIKER : Think about it. You walk into a software store, you see 8-Minute Install sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Install right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
TED : I would go for the 7.
HITCHHIKER : Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Install. And we guarantee just as good an OS as the 8-minute folk.
TED : You guarantee it? That's -- how do you do that?
HITCHHIKER : If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".
TED : That's right. That's -- that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Install. Then you're in trouble, huh?
[Hitchhiker convulses]
HITCHHIKER : No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who installs an OS in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
TED : That -- good point.
HITCHHIKER : 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
TED : Why?
HITCHHIKER : 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!
TED : Yeah... You know what? I gotta pee. I'm just gonna pull over.
HITCHHIKER : Your car seats are making me itchy, man. What are they made out of, cactus? (Ted leaves the car) Only waiting 7 minutes. Total.

I can see a use for it

[Trepidity]

Even if it is far inferior to "normal" Linux, I can see that this would be useful as an alternative to Windows. At the very least it's not worse than Windows in terms of security. So if some people switch, that's less dependence on Microsoft, and once they're used to Lindows it might be easier to eventually get them to switch over to something else.

"Who Cares if it doesn't run windows apps" I DO!

[zaqattack911]

The review only devoted a small paragraph to the section on "running windows apps".

I remember when Lindows was first advertized it was supposed to be able to run 'most' windows apps without any windows OS installed.

That was the only thing that makes this distro interesting, and the only reason it could have been a viable alternative to windows. And it's what pissed of MS so much.

Every geek and his dog, can use a simple wysiwyg Desktop ontop of Linux. As far as I'm concerned the only reason to use this particular distro is out the window.

--noodles

And + Trillian

[vannevar]

Oh yeah, I forgot Trillian. This should be the Lindows 2.1 bundle, IMHO:

Lindows 2.0
Opera 6.05
OpenOffice 1.0.1
Trillian Pro 1.0

What we're not telling you

[napoleone]

This is business. Until the respective market share reaches a target of say 30-40% look for the code to be secret. Same with Windows. If the competition hits the target percentage then we'll get the source as a way to strangle the competition. Even freemasons have secrets. The law is the law.

Just Replace It

[Brad Wilson]

I don't know about you, but I would've just replaced the RAM. The hassle you went through to get a $30 part replaced is ridiculuous. I mean, how little do you value your time that you'd be willing to do that?

Re:Just Replace It

[MichaelPenne]

Dude! It was fr&&*&in' 256 MB RAMBUS, ok? If can find that for $30, it's probably my old one.

Ha ha ha.

[pclminion]

This is hilarious:

To get truly ubiquitous precise layout, Postscript/PDF should be used.

They should most certainly not be used. Ask any lawyer or mortgage broker. If, for example, the margins of the document are off by a millimeter, their document is no longer a legal document. PDF absolutely sucks at doing this. NO ONE in their right mind who needs absolutely precise document reproduction uses PDF.

Re:Ha ha ha.

[Mr. McGibby]

Then what may I ask, do they use?

Re:Ha ha ha.

[pclminion]

Mostly PCL5 (HP Printer Control Language). For example, most of the bills you receive in the mail are coded in PCL which is automatically generated by specialized software. Mortgage origination software is almost entirely PCL based, as well. The forms you fill out for the IRS every year are typeset in PCL. This is because most PCL capable laser printers are pixel-identical in their reproduction, and all HP PCL5 printers are perfectly pixel-exact.

I happen to know, since the company I work for is the major player in the legal/mortgage PCL imaging market -- we produce the only full-function high-performance PCL5 and PCL6 (and HPGL/2, and CALS, etc) viewers available. And believe me, lawyers and banks stay the hell away from PDF. I don't want to plug the company too hard, so I won't name it...

Re:Ha ha ha.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch. PCL should have died a painful death years ago... it's almost a crime against humanity, with its quaint unreadable format. And you say that it actually has some uses? You live you learn I guess.

Re:Ha ha ha.

[Doomdark]

Are you saying that the problem is that margins can not be reliably specified, or that there are 'significant' (for anal-retentive lawyers at least) rounding errors even when things are fully specified? I guess I need to ask my printing guru friend for details (he actually currently writes PCL drivers for a commercial desktop publishing product, albeit prefers postscript)...

Re:This is fine for someone with the right hardwar

[Hieronymus Howard]

They didn't install it on the 'right hardware'. Read the article:

Instead of reviewing the $199 Microtel box, we decided to review Lindows 2.0 as a stand-alone Linux distro. To that end, we installed Lindows on a middle-of-the-road Dell Dimension 4100 (1Ghz with 256MB of RAM and a 40GB hard disk).

If it installs perfectly on a Dell, there's a good chance that it will do the same on a Compaq or Gateway.

HH

Re:This is fine for someone with the right hardwar

[intermodal]

my main issue for home users, to clarify my point, is that many people with prebuilt boxes from OEMs have software modems that do not like linux, whether they came from the manufacturer or they had the neighbor kid install it.

MS Office Compatibility

[mikehunt]

The fact that you can't exchange documents between MS Office and Open Office is really what the whole Linux on the Desktop thing is about. Until OpenOffice can exchange files completely with MS Office, Windows will remain the dominant desktop and MS Office the dominant office suite.

It's not good enough to say that Open Office/Star Office does a 'reasonably' good job on MS files. If it isn't perfect its not worth anything.

Re:MS Office Compatibility

[mwa]

Until OpenOffice can exchange files completely with MS Office,

Or until OpenOffice gets installed on all the Windows systems running unlicensed copies of MS Office....

Re:MS Office Compatibility

[Doomdark]

If you want Honda Civic, buy Honda Civic. If you want MS Word, buy MS Word license. I don't see the point of replacing Word with an exact clone, nor that this is a pre-requisite for success of an office suite.

If OpenOffice gains market share from MS Word, it will be because of its licensing, availablity on multiple platforms, good enough compatibility with other office suites, and its user-friendliness. It's not because it can just clone exact feature set of Word, including 99.99% reliable conversions (100% is impossible for any apps, including different versions of MS Word itself).

For me, "reasonably good job" is perfectly acceptable, and I'd rather they not waste too much time on reverse-engineering their competitor's file format, but concentrate on improving their own product.

Re:MS Office Compatibility

[mikehunt]

I think you are missing the point.

Most companies use MS-Office. I need to work with my colleagues on various documents - specifications, pricing models etc. If OpenOffice cannot work completely accurately with MS file formats then I am forced to use MS-Office. I don't want the functionality to be cloned, I want OpenOffice to be able to render the document/spreadsheet in exactly the same way as MS-Office. One of the settlement terms in MS's anti-trust case should be that they are forced to open the file formats so that other applications can compete on a level playing field.

This is not the case today and as I said: This is the one biggest hurdle to Linux winning more desktop share. Interoperability is the key.

Re:MS Office Compatibility

[Doomdark]

Well, fair enough. I completely agree on importance of interoperability. However, I think reliance on a proprietary file formats that were never designed to be interoperable -- such as MS Office format -- is a mistake. Even though it is difficult (some would claim impossible or impractical) to move to something truly standard (especially no clean alternative exists...), that's how it should be done. And that's why I don't expect complete facsimile transfer from/to Word; it was never intended to happen, and is not something Microsoft would even like to see (if they did, they would drive adoption of Word document format as a standard).

As to cloning, I'm afraid one really has to clone all functionality, completely, to get close to 100% compatibility. All oddities, workarounds and bugs big baggage-ridden apps (like Word) have, have to be duplicated, since file format is very tightly integrated with the feature set.

People can complain as much as they like about HTML, but it is much more ubiquitous and better standard than, say, Word. It wasn't designed to map feature set of a single app (well, occasionally it was, first by Netscape, then by MS... and that causes biggest flaws in HTML), and thus allows reasonable interoperability. Same thing should be done with word processors -- decide on common file format and compete on implementations. And hopefully also learning from HTML mistakes.

Hmm

[PalmKiller]

>This makes it extremely easy for newbies to >Lindows to understand which icons on the taskbar >they should click to get started. It's a simple >scheme that other distros should consider >emulating.

Hmm, SuSE has been doing that for years. I suppose the reviewer needed to get out more :)

Re: I might try it - TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the reason you got metamodded is because people don't like negative mods... for any reason. Why don't you look for something to mod up. The glass is half full, man.

Try Mandrake

[Salsaman]

Since 8.2, I've been able to plug in my USB digital camera, and it just works. As long as you make sure the USB service is started on boot (using the graphic config tool) you should be OK.

Re:This could violate the GPL - I think so...

[kasperd]

you have to give your work to anyone who wants it

I don't think you have to give your work to anyone, you have to give anyone the right to use it, which is slightly different. Having the right to use it, they can use it if they can get it, but you don't have to help them get it.

Anna_Kournikova.pl

[wirefarm]

Think about how easy it would be to absolutely *trash* your system, your network and every other Lindows machine within pingable distance with a simple perl script running as root.

Annoying as it may be, having to enter the root password to change settings is a necessity. Running as root is a tremendously Bad Idea that will be the downfall of this OS. This is just not a negotiable issue at all and should be changed *immediately*.

If you want to see how it should be done, look at OS X - when you need to change something, a confirmation dialog pops up and you enter the password. Not annoying at all. Most people haven't enabled the root account, so the password is just your normal account password.

They should issue a patch that creates a default user and moves the user into this account.
At least their nifty installer would be able to help migrate users easily enough.

(CDs automount nowadays, too.)

Cheers,
Jim

lindows and the "price for it"

[karouser]

What a lot of people are missing is the fact that a fair price needs to be charged. We can not always get our "free beer" some times there is a need to pay for the free speech. All of us should remember that we like this or that of Lindows but not all of it, THAT IS GOOD.One of the things that I find refreshing in this os is that they are charging a fee that should allow them to be able to make a profit and stay in buisness. As for the firewall thing, a firewall is enabled by default on the install (as per Lindows and the article), and it is linux after all and built on debian so you can add users and change the fault of root login by default. This is a good thing and the fact that it is not fritening to newb's is very good at first I was very frustrated ( and still get that ways sometimes) with an install that can be very dificult to implement ( works here not there ).

Dissect Lindows (hand the scalpal)

[lemkebeth]

Since I don't see a post here about this...

They Dissected Lindows? Oh the humanity!

I guess that about takes care of Lindows future.

Note: This was intended to be funny seeing as the title said "Dissected".

Re:Dissect Lindows (hand the scalpal)

[Anonymous Coward]

>They Dissected Lindows? Oh the humanity!

Ha freakin' ha.

Lycoris...

[MsGeek]

Lycoris, in all the times I have worked with it, has "just worked" on everything I've thrown at it.

It's a real Linux distro that doesn't have you running as root constantly, and distributes its source freely. You can even download a full copy of it from the Lycoris FTP site.

It has a "click and run" type thing going called IRIS that requires per-computer registration, but that's only $20 for the life of the computer, while getting that kind of functionality with Lindows costs $99/year and might be going up. You get one license for IRIS with each physical retail copy of Lycoris you buy, and extras are $20.

And the Update Wizard, which is powered by the same setup as IRIS, is free to all. So if all you want to do is use the apps you got with Lycoris and keep your system patched easily, that functionality is free.

Lycoris also has a great community full of very helpful people. Haven't seen this with any other flavor of Linux. Most LUGs aren't this helpful either.

Lycoris is my choice for newbies. Actually once you install the development tools it's pretty choice for average Linux users too. ./configure make make install isn't that hard. ;-)

Only now that AOL works on Linux

[yerricde]

2) use of propietary software and a non-tcp/ip stack (irrelevant to their target customers)

This has become true only since AOL developed a stack for the Linux operating system. No, not Linux the geek OS but Linux the inexpensive OS for entry-level computer users who don't want to pay for a $200 Windows license in addition to a $200 computer. That helps explain the Lindows deal: AOL recognized a new market and targeted it.

apt-get

[ImaLamer]

Funny, in debian apt-get works about 100% the same as the click-n-run whorehouse.

There could be (and are) nice front-ends that do the same deal.

I agree that rpm isn't the easiest way to install software that is "out there". You must hunt it down, try to install it, then hunt down the dependencies, and so forth. With apt-get though the packages are ready for you to install and dependencies are solved. RPM is powerful, and widely used but isn't on that same level. But then again there are apt-rpm (or whatever it's called) and Up2Date, but nothing works as well.

Then again, there is Red Carpet.

clueless...

[Anonymous Coward]

you obviously dont have a clue.. this is clearly NOT a violation of the GPL. go read the GPL for youself. GPL software does NOT have to be given away for free. furthermore, the code only needs to be available to those who are in possesion of the binaries.. so through transitive reasoning, that would mean that they DO NOT have to supply the code unless you buy the software.

ARE YOU PEOPLE SMOKING CRACK?!@#

[Anonymous Coward]

you guys are actually stopping to smell this distro? isn't there a mandrake already? does linux really NEED to be so mainstream? what happened to good ol' editing config files anyway. people are NOT GOING TO BUY A SECOND RATE, WATERED DOWN, WANNABE VERSION OF XP and that's all there is to it! it will NEVER WORK!

HELL-OOO! LISTEN TO THE F'ING NAME! LIN-DOWS? give me a break. SAD SAD SAD!

and this click-and-what? CLICK? HAVE YOU GUYS TOTALLY LOST IT? user-friendly... BAH... GO BUY XP IF YOU WANT USER FRIENDLY! kapeesh? people WILL NOT SETTLE for some second rate system that 'looks like/acts like'... hell, i would smack some redneck for even looking at the price...

THERE IS NO WINDOWS KILLER... there isn't. there are 'people who use linux' and 'people who do not'. this distro by default runs as ROOT? HELL-OOO!!! you could tell me that the f'ing source code for XP is included and throw in a brandy-new RADEON.. if the shit runs as ROOT. I DON'T CARE IF LLAMA's come marching out of the f'ing speakers when you load it up... RUN AS ROOT BY DEFAULT? um...

f lin-dows and f you freakin' beekers who even want to see this silly distro make it's way to your granny's house.

be a freakin' man would ya? or at least a real geek! who wants to do things the 'hard way'? dammit, I DO. and i would be more than happy to show other peeps how to do it to.. if they're willing to learn! edit config files... nano, pico, vi... compile from source... it's NOT THAT HARD to do! point people to mailing lists, read websites, use GOOGLE! and don't give me this crap about 'it takes more than a weekend'. all these nice distros now (yes, even debian), are so easy to install... you don't need 10 consecutive weekends to figure the stuff out anymore!

i'm done ranting.. because that's all it is...

i give a BIG FAT F to LIN-DUHs and to you, 'geeks', for even DREAMING that it belongs on the shelf. buy XP or even OSX... for the same price as this ugly and sad excuse for a wannabe.

i'll take my minimal debian and freebsd's and my slackware thank you very much.

bleh...

No AOL on Lindows, Only Netscape

[reallocate]

Lindows is not packaging an AOL stack, dialer or related software. All they've done is use Netscape. With Netscape, you get IM and the ability to check AOL mail. Anyone who downloads Netscape has the same capabilities.

If you have an AOL account, Lindows will not allow you to dial in and log on to the account.

Lindows has scored a bit of a PR coup here, but that's all.

Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

DOOM 2: Hell on Earth v1.9
P_Init: Checking cmd-line parameters...
V_Init: allocate screens.
M_LoadDefaults: Load system defaults.
Z_Init: Init zone memory allocation daemon.
DPMI memory: 0xf00000, 0x800000 allocated for zone
W_Init: Init WADfiles.
adding doom2.wad
commercial version.
=====
Do not distribute!
Please report software piracy to the SPA: 1-800-388-PIR8
=====
M_Init: Init miscellaneous info.
R_Init: Init DOOM refresh daemon - [....... ]

(Certain characters snipped to avoid lameness filter.)

Damn, seeing that makes me nostalgic - DOS also spewed out loads of text on bootup, so Linux is one of the last bastions for white-on-black geekiness!

AOL is expen$ive: $300 per user

[yerricde]

If you have an AOL account, Lindows will not allow you to dial in and log on to the account.

I stand corrected. Now I realize that running Linux and having AOL as your ISP will cost $300 (plex86 + Windows 2000 license).

The firewall doesn't "just work"

[TrentC]

This is something that seems to often get forgotten within the Linux world. When people complain that something hasn't worked, they tend to get a response like this:

It's easy to fix. All you need to do is edit...

Lindows isn't perfect in this regard, either. From the article:

• No built-in firewall. Most distros these days are shipping with software firewalls. We couldn't find anything comparable to SuSE's firewall in Lindows. Given how easy it is to install and use Lindows, it should be equally easy to configure and use a firewall. For newbies without a hardware firewall, it's a good idea to have some kind of protection.
  
  Editor's Note: After posting this story, Lindows.com contacted us and said that yes, in fact, there is a firewall in Lindows, and it is turned on by default. [emphasis mine] According to Jeremy Shaw: "The configuration can be modified by editing etc/init.d/lindows_fw."

Last Post!

[alpg]

All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts
you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get
them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer.
-- IBM maintenance manual, 1925

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...