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: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.

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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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: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.

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

[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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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

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.

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.