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?

[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: 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?

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?

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[Lxy]

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

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: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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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"

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

[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.

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?

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.

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?

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).

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?

[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.

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...

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.

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: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.

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.

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)?

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!!)

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

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.

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: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

Re:Oh no he didnt.

[RatBastard]

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

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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..

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

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....

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

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. ;-)

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.

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.

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."

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

[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.