Slashdot Mirror
Lindows' Heavy Hand Leads to Summit Dropouts
shawk writes "With Lindows becoming more popular the company's confidence seems to be growing. According to a news item on Desktoplinux.com Lindows unilaterally adjusted the agenda of a planned vendor-neutral summit in a way that is not tolerable for others supporting the conference.
A related article on CNET reports HP having withdrawn from the summit as well."
i wouldn't put that beyond Lindows, as I never really considered them to be a true Linux distro in the first place.
I thought Michael Robertson had changed his ways when he started Lindows. Guess not. This seems to be indication that he's got as much hubris as ever.
Lindows was started with hopes to get big and blast in to the Linux community with open arms.. for the majority of the first year or more not many give them any credit. Now Lindows is signing contracts here or there, putting copies on cheap walmart PC's, and to themselves they are on top of the world right now. Lindows should be careful about stressing things when they are still "so new", as it could seriously proove bad later on.
Here's the question of the day. How does linux takeover the desktop market if it doesn't become corperate in the sense that there is support and advertisement?
Oh no, the evil MP3.com one of the most visited sites on the internet's former CEO is now the CEO of a Linux company, the travisty obviously this man cares not for the community but for his own pocketbook. Yet look at that... Lindows is the new hype word, even beats redhat in most not-in-the-know IT types.
So lindows wants to start its own summit and doesn't want the other vendors to jump on their turf, is this surprising?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I see people saying that now Lindows is trying to play like it's a bid bad boy because they are supposedly popular. I want to understand how is that possible. When I browse the web, chat on IRC, participate in mailing lists, I see folk using all kind of distros. I see people using Redhat, Mandrake, Xandros, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo and god-know-what. But what makes me wonder is that I am yet to hear of a SINGLE PERSON actually USING Lindows for purposes other that reviewing.
Can anyone provide any factual numbers of the amounts of Lindows users compared to the likes of Redhat, Debian and the like ? I am very interested.
The fact that when one vendor does something that i dont agree with i can take my business somewhere else without the blink of an eye. I think this is linux biggest strength. You can choose whatever dist you like and still get the same thing but wrapped in another context. No vendor lockin keeps the vendors on their toes and the ones not collaborating dissapears into oblivion or change their ways fast.
HTTP/1.1 400
...the expected attendance is 600 people. Max.
-Rusty
You never know...
"Lindows spokeswoman Cheryl Schwartzman said the company wanted to concentrate on desktop Linux for customers who'll use it, not for programmers who'll develop it." That tells me that Lindows just wants to take from the programmers who make the programs and give them nothing in return. Not even speaking time at a conference. They just want our programs to charge users 99 dollars a year to download them and flip us the bird. Maybe the next program I create will GPLL. Meaning it's GPL'ed less than Lindows. Lindows can't distribute my program or use any of my code. Don't piss on the people that made/makes your product Lindows.
Another bonus about Lycoris over Lindows: a damn fine user community. Oh yeah, and Joseph Cheek isn't an asshole like Michael Robertson is. ;-)
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Did he offer you any money for these features or was he going to keep that for himself?
You're modded down as a troll, but you've got a point. He did offer me money, but they were features I was going to implement anyway, so I turned it down.
-- Wibble
Unless they've lost control of the windows name themselves,
MS's naming schemes really get to me.
First, they have an OS that displays windows on your screen. They call it Windows.
They make a program to manage your money, and it's called Money.
They make a SQL database server, and they call it SQL Server.
They make a program that plays media, and it's called Media Player.
I'm sure there are more examples too -- just ones I can think of off the top of my head. Ever had this discussion when your fellow IT workers before?
"What are they using for a database?"
"A sql server."
"Which one?"
"SQL Server.... you know, from MS."
"Oh."
Give me names like Informix, Postgres, and Oracle any day.
Justin Buist
It doesn't appear as if Micheal Robertson and Lindows are exactly embracing the spirit or the letter of Open Source / GPL.
Others have asked whether Lindows complies with the GPL and provides source code. If you happen to have already paid them money and noted the IP address of the FTP server where insiders can download source, then I guess they provide source code. If however you go to http://www.lindows.com/ you will not find a Download button or references to source code. A search for "source code" in the "Warehouse" field takes you a list of things that LOOK like they can be downloaded, but just try it. You get dragged into something called "Click n' Run" that works more like porn web site voting lists, constantly cycling you back to pages where you can buy a download membership for $99 or if you're a programmer, another membership for $299.
If you not have a Click-n-Run membership and you are not already running Lindows OS, then they offer 3 options:
1. Purchase the membership for $99
2. Purchase a PC from WalMart and then sign up for Click-n-Run
3. Join their "Insider Program" for $299
Micheal Robertson's goal appears to be to build a business and make a lot of money by leveraging the hard work of a large number of GPL contributors. That's fine, and it scares Microsoft, which is even better. What troubles me is the direction that Micheal is moving to do it, which sure looks like just another corporate grab of a bunch of free stuff and an unwillingness to give back. I sure hope I'm missing something here.
Actually Mandrake didn't spend enough time studying Red Hat and how they make money. For Red Hat selling the distro is the smallest part of their business. If I remember correctly from a conversation with them they said the distro is only about 10% of their business. The RH guy me they would stop selling the distro if they thought they could, but it is a major marketing tool. Red Hat makes most their money on training, certifacation, support, and custom programming. Mandrake could of build a support and trainning business to supplement the sale of the distro.
This is why Microsoft is not worried about Linux in the short-term. The members of the Linux community are busy fighting themselves while heading in no clear direction. I've heard it said that: "Lindows is A choice... not THE choice". There are lots of distros to choose from. If you don't like Lindows -- fine! Don't run it. But, what good does it do to attack Lindows (another Linux distro) when everyday Microsoft sells more operating systems than anyone on the planet?
Who cares if distro ABC is better than distro XYZ!?!? Why do we have to constantly fight ourselves. The only way that Linux will ever go mainstream is by focusing on the needs of end users. Who cares what other distros think? Who cares what other developers think? The goal is to get the end users to switch to Linux! If we continue to fight about petty bullshit this will never happen. And Microsoft is laughing all the way to the bank.
No, nobody offered me the closing spot. But people from Lindows have been saying a number of things that aren't connected with reality. It's very strange.
My participation in the conference has been publicized for months, so I don't understand how Lindows would not have known that the person they hired to set up the conference had put me in the keynote position. That person is a long-time participant in Linux business whose integrity should not be questioned. And anyway, since she was working for Lindows, if you are to believe them entirely unsupervised for months, they need to take responsibility for the work she did - which had no problem.
Regarding their comments about my public speaking prowess - both Michael and I were on NPR the other day, and the broadcast archive is at sciencefriday.com . Judge for yourself. But they have been saying this about anyone they moved into a panel slot (those are all very short) or otherwise rejected - they seem to all be bad speakers. Most of the people they say the advisory board asked for were moved into panel slots.
We want Lindows on the team, but as a team player. It's their right to hold a party and call all of the shots. But they can't expect us all to come to the party on their terms.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Anyone remember LinuxOne? I don't know about you guys but I just get a sleazy feeling from Lindows, the same kind of vibe I got from LinuxOne. How about Loki? I'm not trying to lump Loki in with them per se, there were some good guys that worked there but the company, the CEO, were on the sleezier side of things. I think they are a bit more honest than LinuxOne but I don't think that they are looking to do anything other than make a quick buck.
Let's face it, but this is no surprise. When you take a product that is free and you encourage people to commercialize it, you tend to attract slimeballs. That's why so many websites sell your personal info. That's why Kazaa includes spyware.
I don't know how many times I've heard Redhat descibed as the next redmond or how they're taking over the world with blue curve and bucking; the truth is Redhat has been walking the walk as much as talking the talk and giving a lot back.
RedHat management may be idealists right now, but who owns RedHat? They are a public company, and if they don't start making significant profits, the board of directors (or the major shareholders) are going to rise up and install their own management. Business is business.
-a
Mandrake says they get a bigger "cut" from Mandrake Club memberships than they do from the boxed product.
.ISO's, I would never have gone through the trouble to install it.
If there were no
Not having installed it, I wouldn't have felt the need to give anything back by "joining".
So, I get to do easy installations, they get their money, this is a bad thing?
Of course, it remains to be seen whether relying on others' sense of duty is a sustainable business model, but I hope it does.
Michael Robertson has practiced tech-witchcraft for years, this is just the most recent example.
The basic facts of this story are clear as day... Michael Robertson wanted to hold a conference, but he knew if he held it himself nobody would show up. So, he partners with a Linux news site that prides itself in maintaining indepenace from any specific vendor. That news site demands that they have a say in the control of the agenda if they are going to lend their credibility, and he agress. They draw up an agreed upon agenda... then suddenly Michael Robertson decides he wants to substitute one where he's the keynote. News site is now crying foul play as it pulls out, and several other participants are rethinking their plans as one-by-one others pull out. The only dust left to settle deals with who's still in and who's out.
It might not be illegal, but it's certainly a mean thing to do. He's basically burning his credibilty with some major Open Source supporters all in exchange for the right to be keynote speaker at a trumped-up conference. It shows how little respect he has the Open Source community... and thefore the community doesn't like him much either.
He's soiled his reputation with past bad acts, and this just added to the list.
Nope, one of my packages was included in Lindows, and the President even contacted me personally to ask if I could add a few features. They aren't stealing from open source "programers" - they're complying fully with the GPL.
Did he offer you any money in exchange for giving the features that meet the needs of his for-profit company priority over the features you would have done first otherwise?
This is where the "you're being used" situation sets in. They're not really "stealing" from you, but he's politely asking you to do something that makes him money, and offering only a "Thank you!" (followed by a wisper of "SUCKER!") in return.
I use LindowsOS about 50% of the time. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. I bet a lot of these folks haven't even tried using it. It is stable and is mainly Debian. Lindows has made some tweaks to KDE but, the Click-N-Run is a nice feature. I think the entire Linux community should agree on a packaging/installation system! It is terribly complex for non-technical users. I can do things in the console or I can stay in KDE... so, I'm pretty happy with it. The installer is excellent and the hardware detection is pretty good. I've had a few small problems but was able to find solutions pretty fast because Debian is a popular distro. I don't regret spending the money on it. I hope Linux on the desktop really does take off! I support Xandros too and I have it running on my other machine.
I'm positive they use their own servers and their own packages. They take nothing from debian and use none of their bandwidth. (Although they do leave apt in tact thankfully)
I too wish Lindows would donate more back to the community and have been pushing them to do so. (I've been a member with them since VERY early on)
However, you guys are spewing ALOT of misinformation about them.
1.) You don't have to run as root. Multiuser support is the same as it is in any distro
2.)They're abiding by the GPL - ALL code has been given back.
3.) They use their own servers for everything.
4.)AND Roberston was ALWAYS scheduled as the one giving the keynotes speech. I'm attending the summit and have followed it from day one, and he's ALWAYS been in that slot.
-Brian
They have their own, security-controlled repository at http://software.lindows.com/ (the repository appears empty until a properly authenticated Click-N-Run request is received, at which point the server gives only the files needed for that install).
If you're going to bash someone, at least get the facts straight. CNR version 0.90 might've used Debian's servers, but that was an alpha test version. Version 3.0 is very very very different.
A solution to the problem with music today