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

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."

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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"

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 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: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: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.

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

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. :)