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: 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: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.

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...

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

[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.

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

[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

[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: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."

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?

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.

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)

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.

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]

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

[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

[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.

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.

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?!?"

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.

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.

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.

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!!)

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: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.

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.