Slashdot Mirror
Xandros 1.0
Mr. Smoove writes "Despite the quick-off-the-mark review from Newsforge this morning, the Xandros 1.0 desktop is finally here! No free download so you'll have to shell out US$99 for it but you do get an enhanced (?) version of KDE 2.2 and built-in Cross-Over Plugin and Office! Finally a decent challenger to Lycoris and also what Lindows should have been..." There's also an interview with a Xandros executive.
ftp://2130706433/pub/warez/0day :-)
-M.
Since you aren't entitled to the sources unless you obtain the binaries legit, then what is the problem? The GPL doesnt say anything about giving the sources out free to everyone. It says if you give out a binary to someone, that person is also entitled to the soruces free of charge. (ie, email them and they will be required to send it to you)
/. a hundred times.
If someone buys the $99 dollar copy, then posts the binaries and sources on his website for free download, that would be fine, but so far, nobody has done that, so you must pay $99 dollars if you want it. GPL isn't free beer.
Go read the GPL, this question has been answered on
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
Is this a viable alternative to anything? Seriously, I can't believe they don't offer some sort of free trial version. I don't understand how companies expect they will ever gain traction in the marketplace when they don't do something substantially better. Incremental improvements, if that is what they are in this case, are not enough. Sure, I admit it, I haven't used the product. But what is my incentive? Why should I shell out $99? Based on a review? No chance of that. Not when I can get something almost as good for free. Or, not when I don't see a major improvement for making the leap. Of course, I suppose you could rain on my parade by saying this is an OS so the rules are different. But, I don't think that is a good argument; not when I can get an OS for free. Do I want to run Windows? OK, then I'll use Wine or maybe I'll go for Lindows. This is just my quick, early post, $0.02 and I'm probably wrong in a major away. Here are some rotten eggs to throw at me -- have a blast throwing them at me.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Big, big mistake. In fact, if they don't provide some kind of live-cd, ala SuSE, they'll completely flop. It's that simple. No one will pay for an OS that they haven't used at a friends house or can freely try it out on their own, especially when the packages are so out-of-date (all these "Windows-killers" seem to use that same outdated version of KDE). Check out the Xandros page at distrowatch and see for yourself.
LindowsOS saved itself by coming pre-installed on WalMart PC's--Xandros will have to try and pull some similar maneuvre. As I see it, there's no way in hell other *NIX users will pay for something they already have, and Windows users are skeptical of change as is ("You mean to tell me they're making this for free?" usually sets them off).
If Xandros were the best desktop distro ever, it wouldn't matter if they couldn't get people to try it, and then buy it. I hope they do in the future, because I'm actually interested in this.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Yes, it is legal to make a GPLed project only available for pay.
The fact a product is GPLed means basically two things:
If you give someone a copy of the product, they are allowed to give it away to anyone they like, and you cannot stop them.
That's ALL. There. It's said. Now you don't have to complain about the $99 thing, right? Becuase you all get it now. So shut up. There's a nice FAQ here if you're still confused.
I'm too late by now, aren't i?
'Tseems the site has all but yielded already. You can find some info at Distrowatch
Don't forget the roots, either: http://linux.corel.com/
No. You are only obligated to make the sources available to those who receive/buy the binaries.
As a good citizen of the open source community you should feed your patched upstream but you are not required to.
Buying both Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin will set you back, in total, almost $99. KDE 2.2.2 has seen some improvements recently, many of them given back by Lycoris. I have a great way of thinking about Xandros. Think of it as a braindead simple way of getting Debian and both Crossover Office and Crossover Plugin in the bargain.
:-P At least with Lycoris' "Iris" simple software installer it costs you only $20 per seat, forever.
Of course, if Xandros is trying to pull the same Lindows crap and charge $99/year "subscription"...then screw that, I'll wait for Debian to put out 3.0 with the Progeny installer.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Its not that unproven.
Seriously, Xandros is just the new version of Corel's Linux. Corel also has part ownership in Xandros.
Its definately not the OS you stick on your webserver... its not meant to be. Its a desktop distro that is supposedly very good at what it does. I sure wouldn't pay that kind of money for it, but for those who are interested in Linux but don't know where to begin, it might be a good thing.
I know a few people who really honestly loved Corel's distro and can't seem to get their minds around any of the others, so for them its probably a no-brainer.
you seem to mistake no litigation with no teeth.
the FSF tries to save money by trying to work with the infringing company to fix the gpl violations. if it comes down to it, the FSF tells the infringing company that it must stop using the software of face litigation. no company has tried to fight the GPL, so in ecense it does have teeth since it keeps infringers from using the product out of fear of litigation. about it holding up in court or not, I do not see why it would not....copyright give authors control over the agreement with other parties who want to use there creation....if I say you have to give this to one other person in order to use it, then you have to give it to one other person or you don't get to use it.....
very simple stuff.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
We're not following the traditional Linux distribution approach where you've got six calculators, four text editors, three of this and two of that -- you get one of everything with us.
Thank god. This is something I wish more distros would do. Most seem to think that if I get eight different crappy ways to set up PPP, I'll be happy.
Next was the license agreement. It was one of those (quickly-becoming typical) EULAS that mention the GPL stuff and then the proprietary stuff. Interesting about this license: There was no license to read BEFORE I opened the box, no shrink wrap or seal on the package, and yet the final paragraph of the EULA states that if I don't agree with the license and haven't broken the seal on the software I can return it for a refund. Oops! Too late. Of course, this is a review copy -- perhaps yours will be shrink-wrapped with a copy of the agreement on the outside.
Sure the Mac OS theme is intriguing, but I can get my mac jollies out using Basillisk. And 99 bucks for what? Lindows with a different name? Let me download it, and we'll see. Frankly, I'm happy with my win98. When I can run Adobe software, Acid & Soundforge on linux, I'll switch. Until then, OpenBeos gets my vote for 'alternative OS'.
From the interview:
A key message that we want to convey is that we are not trying to compete for the bleeding edge user. We want people to actually get their daily work done -- everything should just work. If you look at most of those other distributions, much of what's there either doesn't work, or it's too hard for the average user to understand or to use. That's the key difference.
So it's ok..they are not targeting you, me, the linux geeks & the bleeding edge crowd. I don't know many among those who would pay $99 for an up to date distribution anyway.
They're targetting business users, the office desktop, and want to make a cheap OS that just plain works, even in fields where Linux traditionnaly doesn't do too well (browser plugins, compatibility with Microsoft software) thank to a tight integration with Codeweaver's Crossover plugin & office.
So.. I'm not interested in Xandros, but that doesn't mean Xandros is not interesting.
!
^_^
Use Redhat.
Sorry, but what is the point in Xandros, Lindows, Lycoris, etc?
Infact, what is the point in the millions of distros we have now, (apart from special distros for non X86 hardware, and specialised applications)?
If you're a corporate user, use Redhat
If you're an ordinary user migrating from Windows, use Mandrake, or Redhat
If you're an average geek, use Debian
If you've already got *nix experience, use Slackware
They are all freely downloadable, (although I suggest buying an official disk set - it's usually cheap anyway, and it does help the distros to keep funding themselves).
I know this could be interpreted as a troll, but it's not meant to be. We don't need 'united Linux', we don't need a lot of distributions pretending to be Windows. All that does is to confuse the end user.
When people ask me why they should switch to Linux from Windows, I usually ask them, 'Well, does Windows do everything perfectly that you want it to', 'Yes!', they usually say. I tell them to stick with Windows until they can think of something about it that they don't like. Usually within about 10 seconds they think of something. Then I show them a Linux machine, and tell them that the reason it's better, is because it's nothing like Windows. If they want to benefit from Linux's superiority, they need to invest time to learn it properly. Otherwise, they're better off just putting up with their current in-adequate system.
You are incorrect. Look at 3b of the GPL. You can provide a written offer to provide a copy of the source code on a suitable distribution media (and the offer must be good for a minimum of 3 years) for the cost of physically providing the copy.
This is how GNU got $$ initially. RMS sold tapes with the source code to Emacs and other GNU software.
Incorrect!
GPL faq says:
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
Translation: If you take a GPL'd program and make modifications it and release that program you must make the modifications available to anyone who had a license to the original program or any derivative version of it!
from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* 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, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* 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.)
E-mail is fine and dandy. You can even charge costs, and you only have to do it for three years.
Reading over the posts, it seems many are miffed about Xandros not having a downloadable version for people to try. Apparently, the prevailing view is why buy it if you can't try it. Folks, this is so hypocritical. You see, I feel the same way about MacOS X. The only reason I would be interested in it is for the GUI, but if I can't even try that, I'm not shelling out the money so I can lock myself into their hardware. At least with Linux I can configure KDE 3 to approximate the look of OS X, and I've found I like it. But what I like best of all is that my desktop can look like Aqua, but I don't have to pay for the privilege to restrict myself to Aqua.
As for using KDE 2.2, do you think maybe the emphasis is on stability, not having the newest stuff? Doesn't Debian do the same thing too? And if you don't like the version Debian stable uses, you can upgrade. Guess what, you can upgrade Xandros too.
I await -1 troll (called posters hypocrites, mentioned Apple in non reverential tone), but I just can't get over the whining!
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
"The shipping version of Xandros has two CDs. One is the main desktop that we think is good enough and stable enough, and easy enough for people to use. The second CD is basically KDE 3, so the bleeding edge users can try it out to see what the fuss is all about. We are trying to satisfy both worlds, as opposed to just satisfying the bleeding edge.
take the GPL quiz, They must send you a copy, only email or only over the internet. Suitable is taken to mean by the same delivery method as you recieved the binaries, e.g. Post.
also from the FAQ's
" You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place. "
" "Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. "
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
It looks like I'm gonna have to stand up once again and go against the grain. I love everything I've seen on Xandros. I think the client is a great, great thing, and basing it on stable, bug-free code (KDE 2.2 instead of 3) is a very smart idea.
/. readers buying the distro: They want corporate accounts. And by the looks of it, they're going to get them.
These guys are off on the right foot. They don't want
Why? Simple. The file manager is brilliant in terms of what it does, how it looks, and how it can be incorporated with existing machines, and especially, domains. You ever wonder what Linux has been missing? Well, this is it.
Does anyone else here, especially those bitching the loudest, actually administer users? I don't know about you, but any tiny change will cause an uproar. A rollout of Mandrake, Redhat, or SuSE would cause numerous heart attacks where I work, with users complaining about everything from clutter in the menus (why are there 4 different configuration menus in Redhat? No one's really sure...) to lack of a decent resolution changer, something Xandros already has. Training is a big issue in large companies, and the more you can port from Windows to Xandros, the easier (and more compelling) a choice it will be.
OpenOffice should save companies lots of cash. It's compatible with Office 97->XP docs, and the savings on the lack of licensing on that product alone will be worth raising an eyebrow for the upper execs. Those who still need it for Outlook, Powerpoint and/or Access can keep their copies at little to no cost of what businesses are paying now, or simply buy the products seprately instead of the whole office suite. The only thing needed now is a true, open source Exchange-connecting email client (I know Evolution can use the calendars, but it costs $70 and I love Linux because 95% of it is free) and then they'll really be in high cotton.
I know everyone's balking about the cost, the GPL source tinkering, and the rest, but from a sys admin's POV, this OS has done more in one release than Redhat did in five.
While I'm certainly a big KDE3 fan, let's be honest (at the risk of being modded down as flamebait). Can you actually list offhand all the progress that KDE3 has over KDE2?
Okay, so it has a few nicer-looking themes, but let's think more about substance - Xandros isn't going for all-out flash. KDE3's got a better version of Konqueror, but that's not so important given that most Linux desktops use Mozilla. KDE3 has better printer support and an improved file manager, but Xandros has already heavily modified the file manager anyway, and it's not hard to imagine them including a printer setup wizard. Improvements to KOffice are kind of irrelevant given that this comes with CrossOver Office. Multimedia stuff (Noatun, etc.) - not important, there are non-KDE apps that can do much better still. Basically all that it's missing is a bit of a speed boost and some changes to KDE-PIM.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that KDE2 is better in any way, just that if Xandros has already put this much work into KDE2 to improve it, then it's not so bad that they're sticking with it rather than going with a more vanilla version of KDE3.
The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
The reason why they keep changing APIs is to correct design errors. They break APIs less and less often. Look at the changes beween KDE 1 and 2: they're HUGE! Now look at the changes between KDE 2 and 3: they're mostly source compatible. And compare GTK+ 2.0 with 2.1: they're planning on making 2.2 binary compatible with 2.0, because the API is good and mature enough.
At least open source projects are willing to break compatibility for the sake of better designs. The APIs become more and more stable as projects mature.
The reason Linux has the market on servers and covers less than 1% of the dektop market is because consumers are computer illiterate. (Which is not their fault)
The only way for Linux to have a shot at becoming a major OS and compete with Microsoft is if it can become dummy-proof and easy to use for the average PC owner.
Xandros may not be that solution, but it's a step in the right directin to bridge the gap between linux and user-friendly needs.
..that they are putting non-free software in with the free software and restricting usage of the non-free software. This means that you cannot buy the software and redistribute it... you can only redistribute the free software that is included in their distribution, and I'm sure that they have made it so that it is not a working product sans the non-free software.
This is the business model for UnitedLinux, so you best get used to it. The days of freely copying linux CDs are numbered. Per seat licensing, here we come!
Use Gentoo or Debian. It's the only way to protect your freedom.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
Translation: If you take a GPL'd program and make modifications it and release that program you must make the modifications available to anyone who had a license to the original program or any derivative version of it!
Read the FAQ again -- it explicitly says that you do NOT have to do anything. You don't have to make the modifications available to anyone; you just have to permit them to use your modifications, if they should happen to get their hands on them.
The only people who have a *right* under the GPL to get their hands on your modifications are the ones you give the modified software to.
This doesn't matter. Odds are almost 100% that Xandros has already released all their modifications as patches. The main reason they're not giving it away is that they're heavily integrated with non-GPL, and in fact non-free software. They couldn't give that away if they wanted to, and they shouldn't.
-Billy
Hmm..
My time is $100/hr , so if it takes 10 minutes to open the letter, extract the name, mailing address and such, then another 10 to burn the CD and another 10 to drive to the Post office to mail it then add in the costs of packaging and postage and the CD + state tax, $75 would be a reasonable cost.
FTP servers arent free either, the machine, the admin time, the T1 all cost money. It's a little harder to determine costs there, If one person a year wants source, then its gonna cost about $10k,
if 1000's want it, then $10, if millions, then I need a T3 and a rack of servers, so the cost may still be $10 or more..
Of course the GPL allows someone else to get a copy of the source and provide it for free, and that would be fine with me, saves me the time and money, and I can work(bill$$) on more interesting things.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
Xandros is based on Debian, which is designed and developed to be a production system. As such, it often lacks the "latest-and-greatest bleeding edge toys", sacrificing newness in favor of tried-and-true KNOWN rock-solid stability. In a corporate environment, most managers would avoid EVER upgrading software if they could, which is why there was so much fear and uncertainty about Y2K.
Again, corporate managers would really prefer to specify a mandatory standard for desktop appearance that applied company-wide. Your "half the fun" is ALL of there problem when they have to bring in a temp to cover for the receptionist or a secretary and the poor temp's eyes are hemorrhaging before noon because of some atrocious color scheme the regular employee "designed" to "improve" the appearance of their workstation. Computers in the corporate environment are supposed to be tools, not toys.
Xandros is going to have a tough go of it. They are taking on Microsoft head-on in a market that MSFT deems critical. The road will be long bumpy and dusty. I truly hope that they have the fortitude to stay the course. I don't think this distro is the Windows-killer, but It does seem to be well thought-out and put together.
utter rubbish
things like the two crossover packages, which by the way, cost together near 99$. Xandros is a pretty good deal like that, especially if you are a new linux user (who they are targetting).
What is this distro really? And how does it compare to Corel Linux 1.2/Second Edition? What have they removed/replaced and what have they added? I have established the following so far:
- CrossOver Office and Plugin are installed but the versions supplied are NOT supported by Codeweavers
- Non-destructive (will you backup?) NTFS partition resizing is in as part of the install, and that I must say is a great innovation!
- OpenOffice is present
- It's basically Debian Woody at heart
- It seems the Corel File Manager and Samba integration suite are still alive and kicking
- The Corel X control panel seems to have gained multi-monitor support!
- They've gained a switch user function like WinXP
- Extended hardware autodetection including drivers for WinModems!
- They've put back in a text installer!!!!! No more you can't install if your video card brings down the installation system.
- Xfree86 4.2! Not the debian 4.1. I wonder if this is a homebrew or the test debian packages from X-Strike-Force (presume homebrew).
Right what has anyone else figured out, or even better does anyone out there have Corel Linux 1.2/SE AND Xandros 1.0 to compare and contrast? Some specific interesting (to me anyway) questions would be?- Can it play DVD's
- Does it do anything to prevent you using official debian apt sources (libc or
...)
- If this is really "A system that is complete and functional as soon as you finish installing" does it still gracefully handle the power of dpkg/apt through XandrosUpdate?
- What java suite do they use and how is it packaged and what licence is it under?
- How compatible are their chat tools and will they remain so? Are they actively developing or contributing to their devopment or just hoping for the best?
I presume there are a million and one other questions I have forgotten as I wrote this but I'll sum it all up by saying:I think Corel Linux was a great start to an OS project. I went far beyond anything any other Linux distro had done to reach out to the non-enthusiasts out there and offer them an alternative to Windows for their x86 computer. It wasn't perfect, it was a work in progress, and I hope that Xandros are actually able to take the ball and run with it as it had promise. The only things I question are the shift away from the home market, the lack of a Free CD and the inclusion of CrossOver Office which diminishes the impact of OpenOffice (Corel supplied a WP8 with their distro and let you choose the office tools you wanted on top of that, i.e. gnumeric or WPO2000 or StarOffice).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Okay.. let me clarify myself after spending a lengthy period of time reading the gpl carefully.
1. Everyone who has the binary and is licensed to use it is entitled to the source code(to my understanding excludes some random person stealing the binary).
2. Everyone who had a license to the original work or any derivative works of the original work also has a license for the modified version (even if it is distributed for a 99$ fee - perfectly acceptable).
3. Distributor of modified version to my understanding is not required to provide either the binary or a source to a third party (original version license holder) but if this third party happens to come across the binary somehow they have the same rights as anyone who acquired it directly from the provider of modified version.
4. A third party can acquire a license also if someone who bought the software from you distributes it to them.
5. If a third party has acquired the binary and have a license to use it they can demand the source code and the provider must provide it or they are in violation of gpl.
Now, I wonder what the implications are for a case where a third party original license holder who does not have the modified binary "steals" it from somewhere. Technically it is not even a theft since they were licensed to use the software anyway.
No. The ones that receive binaries from the original customers have the right to get the sources from those customers, not from the company that put it out originally.
What? Please back up your position with a citation from the GNU GPL or the GNU GPL FAQ.
I'll back up my position. From the GPL (my emphasis):
From the GPL FAQ:
Will I retire or break 10K?