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A related article on CNET reports HP having withdrawn from the summit as well."
A little bit of conventional wisdom: alienating your developers is a Bad Idea.
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.
Any source code yet? Is Lindows stealing from open source programers?
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.
From the company who brought you Lindows, comes Licrosoft like management decisions.
...before a fall (whu is it spelled "goeth"?)
:)
I really think Lindows is going to lose the trademark tussle with Microsoft over the name. Not only does Microsoft have nearly infinite legal resources, but I think here they may actually be right (and that's from a Mac user). Unless they've lost control of the windows name themselves, entirely possible from what I've heard -- Microsoft has no lack of hubris and is overdue for a stumble or more.
Good think Apple never got arrogant. Oh, wait.... But they felll big time, and I think it was a good thing, if only because it drew Jobs back like the second coming, and vested him with unilateral power to match. He's proud but smart. Like Gates. If their positions were reversed, hmmm....
Stop chuckling Linux-heads. Power/pride corrupts, your turn may come.
Sorry, but is anyone surprised by this? They even NAMED THEMSELVES after a microsoft product....
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...
This isn't just alienating developers. It's alienating the whole Linux community, including users, OSS contributors, commercial entities. These people and organisations are working in a cooperative way to achieve (at this time anyhow) related goals. Backing Linux for many organisations, especially commercial ones, can be considered risky. Linux is far less accepted on the desktop, and it is likely that within organisations that are supporting linux, there are strong camps that are opposing or only luke-warm towards it. This action by Lindows is going to give ammunition to the anti-Linux factions, and specifically from Lindows' point of view, destroy trust that is so important to strategic relationships.
i think the question is "Who would admit to using Lindows?", but thats another point. Linux Counter reports that, out of 115,886 submitted values, there are 8 distros in use, none of which are Lindows, which must be in the "Others" department, which takes up 13.13% of the share. Those 8 (in order of usage): Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Slackware, SuSE, Conectiva, "diy", and Debian sid. Then again, would your average Lindows user even know or care about something like Linux Counter? -- While you're there, fill out a reg form.
Excuse me, but you should probably do your homework.
The original poster didn't claim that Lindows wasn't distributing source, only that people should look in to it. The idea is valid, as Lindows was known to previously break the GPL by not making source available. They claimed it was only for their "beta" period, but the GPL doesn't allow this in any form.
You, on the other hand, are making something up completely out of the blue. Even if he was stealing gasoline, this has no relevance to the point the oringal poster was trying to make. Lindows not distributing source code, on the other hand, is directly related to Lindows not being a team player, which is the point of the article the comment was made on.
Saying people are making logical falicies by making a logical falicy is rather hypocritical, in my mind -- and just bad form, too.
"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.
You have no idea how deeply this offends all us other Michael Robertson's. We would like to issue a collective apology for our kinsman, who seems to have given us a a bad name. Appropriate actions will be taken to silence him. -Michael Robertson
I think Lindows is on the shortcut to loserville with the Linux community at large. At many different times they've seemed to take the fruits of what Linux users and developers have contributed to the system as a whole and then turned right around and mooned them. At every opertunity Michael Robertson has seen fit to present his ass to the public which his company relies on for their product development. I'd much rather hear Bruce Perens wax philosophic about Linux and Open Source than hear Mike R. pimp Lindows.
One thing that has bothered me a lot about Lindows is the fact they charge $99 for a subscription to their software distribution service (apt-get). It doesn't bother me they are selling a subscription service at all, the thing that gets to me is they are using the public Debian servers and not providing their own. People pay $99 to access a service Lindows has absolutely no afiliation with and does not seem to support in the slightest. The only program repository I can actually find that they house themselves is their FTP site with their patches and whatnot on it.
Lindows is the MP3.com of the Linux world. It is riding the Linux hype wave as far as it can while shafting anyone contributing to it. Where MP3.com shafted the artists providing the site's content, Lindows is shafting the Linux developer providing the distro's content. Where MP3.com has horrible contractual terms Lindows pillages public servers and donation funded development efforts.
Hopefully Lindows will decide to play nice as a community member which they become by default when entering the Linux distro business. There is a Linux community that exists, it isn't just open source zealot preach talk. Companies wanting to interact with this community need to follow its often times quirky social rules and behave as proper community members. I don't really see Lindows doing this at all. It's a shame seeing them pull this stuff because there's a lot of people who will never know the difference between Lindows and any other distro, they'd be hard pressed to tell you why Lindows is not the same as Windows. All these people will do is make Lindows successful at the cost of the people developing Linux software or housing it for distribution.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I was scheduled to give a talk on "The Kernel and the Desktop" at the Desktop Linux Summit and I formally withdrew on Thursday after having a discussion with the involved parties due to the issues discussed in these news articles. The behavior shown - especially the treatment of Bruce - is not acceptable.
I, uh, bet there will be more dropouts over the next couple days - Lindows is not cool.
Lindows has always given me a little bit of a bad feeling, but I've never really been able to identify anything really wrong with them. Sure, the CEO does some weird things, and even makes some people mad. But whatever they do doesn't even compare to many other businesses from which we buy software.
Beyond that, Linodws is a good distribution. Very easy install, and sensible defaults for an ex-windows user. More importantly, debian lies beneath the whole thing, and the debian servers are (by default) set in sources.list. That means you have everything a world-class server distro has, yet a nice interface for a beginner.
I administer some servers, and recently one of my coworkers decided to really get linux installed. I recommended lindows because it is easy to install, and sure enough, he got it up and running. I also offered Mandrake as an alternative, but it was just a little more difficult to work with and install new software. Also, I didn't know enough about RPM to help him out.
The $99 click-n-run service seems like a perfectly acceptable business model to me. It's working for my coworker, and doesn't even slow down the way I might go about installing software (apt-get). I would probably change it to run as a non-root user also, but a new user probably finds it easiest to just use root. Lindows is not too insecure, I might add, because it doesn't install all kinds of servers.
I wouldn't choose lindows for myself, but it seems like a damn good way to get started to me.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I am a Lindows.com Insider. I have cut and pasted the post the President of Lindows.com made on our forums. Here it is:
We had contracted with one of the employees of Desktoplinux.org (they only have a couple) to pay them to help out with organizing A FEW PARTS of the summit. Without going into great detail, let's just say this relationship ended up being unworkable. Due, perhaps from some bad communication on our part, this person became upset with some of the decisions being made about the summit. (We wanted a consumer, media-friendly event, not a technical, developer's conference.) Based on early misunderstandings, this person unfortunately had made promises to vendors without our final approval and had promised speaking slots. When the agenda came up for final approval (the first time Michael or I even saw it), we made changes to make it have more of a mass-market slant. The changes we made put this person in an awkward position with some people. We told this person that we would take full responsibility for the misunderstandings and to blame us if anyone was disappointed.
In the end, it was simply a bad fit and this person was simply not the appropriate ambassador for the summit as we envisioned it. (It's hard to sell something you yourself don't believe in.) Therefore, we stopped contracting with this individual and used other people who LOVED the summit as we had planned it.
As for this notion of "vendor neutrality," Lindows.com was NOT in anyway trying to turn the Summit into a "Lindows.com Show." Anyone who attended Wineconf or an MP3 Summit (both events also sponsored by Michael) know he's not like that. One look at the agenda and it's pretty obvious this is a show about how COOL LINUX IS ON THE DESKTOP, not about Lindows.com. Besides, Linux is so much more than distros. It's about office suites (Sun), applications (Kompany), printers (HP), tablets (StepUp), Games (Transgaming), hardware (Microtel), and on and on... Lindows.com doesn't even compete with 95% of the vendors at the show. We DO plead guilty that we VERY MUCH were making sure the summit stayed a show with MASS MARKET appeal, but the notion that we wanted to turn it into a Lindows.com show is simply ridiculous. (Go view the wineconf or 4 years of mp3 summit videos to see for yourself.)
This is the sort of wacky "drama" that has plagued Linux for far too long and makes Microsoft laugh at Linux. Fortunately we, as we always do, will remain above this. The only reason I'm even making this post is because this thread asked for a response.
We'll have a packed house and it's going to be a great show. If you look at the agenda, you'll see it's the interesting, consumer-focused type of show Linux needs to start moving into the mainstream markets.
Kevin
I am a Lindows Member too... and here is some more information that was given after the post above:
r berianc ke s
Here's an update on the latest with the Summit...
As of this evening, the following changes have been confirmed to the Summit's sponsor/exhibitor list:
Deletions:
- HP
- Questnet
- the Kompany
Additions:
-Epson
-Earthlink
-Bitstream
-Ce
-CentralCommand
-Hancom
-GridIQ
-Brobe
-SpeakEasy
-MP3.com
-Photogenics
-GarageGam
As for the issue with the Keynote. Michael was ALWAYS slated to be the Keynote. It was this person from desktoplinux.org who promised it to Bruce Perens. (Michael and I had no idea about this!) It was NOT Michael who insisted HE be the Keynote speaker. That was ME! I have heard Michael speak on several occasions and I have also heard Bruce Perens. No offense to Bruce, but he's just not a very dynamic public speaker, ESPECIALLY for a consumer-type conference. As I have said, this summit is about the ability for Linux to move to the mass markets. I think everyone will agree, that is Michael Robertson's area of expertise, not Bruce's. I can't think of anyone who has championed the ideal of taking Linux to the masses more than Michael. He has the arrows in his back from the traditional Linux crowd to prove it! Bruce fired a few more in this week. =)
For the record, we offered Bruce the prime spot of closing the summit, but he said he didn't want to speak at all. That was his choice.
Michael Robertson was always the Keynote speaker at the annual MP3 Summit's, and did a great job. These summits were always very successful and no one ever accused MP3.com of not being fair to the many other vendors who attended the MP3 Summits.
Finally, of the 25 speakers suggested to us by the "panel," (Michael and I didn't even know there WAS such a panel!) we included 19.
As is obvious from the above changes, the show is only growing in status and support, not dwindling.
Kevin
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.
This is very interesting. Just yesterday Ira Flatow had both Bruce Perens and Michael Robertson on his show, Science Friday . Bruce is actually a pretty cool guy, I expected him to be more militant and opinionated for some reason. He kind of reminds me of Emo Phillips.
_ 011703.html
Bruce made a very artful dodge when asked whether Lindows was any good. He basically acknowledged that it was good to have another group working on making Linux better but he diplomatically avoided saying anything good about Lindows.
You can listen to the show in Real format here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2003/Jan/hour1
The originals for those postings are here on Lindows.com's bulletin board. They come from Kevin Carmody, Lindows.com's president. That he wrote this stuff boggles my mind, but he wrote it.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.