Michael Robertson of Lindows Responds

Naturally, when answering your questions, he boosted his company. (Wouldn't you?) But I assure you, he wrote these answers himself instead of having them laundered by a PR team. Whether or not you agree with Michael and the way he runs Lindows (and used to run MP3.com) you've got to give him credit for speaking more openly than most other modern American CEOs.

1) why oh why?
by Ender Ryan

Why was it decided that Lindows would always run as 'root' by default? That seems like a pretty bad decision to me, and many others as it's the number 1 complaint of many Linux users who would otherwise like to give Lindows a try, but perhaps we should hear why that decision was made.

Is this how Lindows is going to continue to work in the future? I think this is one "feature" of Win9x that would really be better to leave in the past.

Robertson

I think the larger issue here is how do you balance security vs. ease of use. We are committed to providing a secure desktop operating system and make policy decisions about how to achieve a secure but usable system. For example, not plugging a computer into the 'Net would make it really secure, but not very usable. We did decide to build in a pre-configured firewall because it's largely an invisible security layer that adds meaningfully security to the desktop but stays out of the users way. Most security compromises are external attacks, not root vs. non-root issues.

Historically, multi-user systems made sense when hardware was expensive because not everyone could afford a computer and you could leverage the cost of expensive machines by creating multiple users and doing time sharing. But times have changed and computers are now ultra-affordable with PCs starting at $200.

So there's less need to share computers and have multi-user accounts with all that overhead and complexity. There aren't “administrators” in many of the homes, businesses and schools we are selling to. These are personal computers where the owner needs to be able to set the clock, change the wallpaper, configure a printer, install a flash drive, or load a new piece of software without bumping into nuances of computer science.

Take a Microsoft Windows XP or Mac OS X machine out of the box and use it and it operates in a similar manner to LindowsOS – the first person to touch it can do whatever they want. If we make Linux harder to use then other operating systems, users will not embrace it. Users just want to get their work done, they don't want to be computer experts and they shouldn't have to be. Of course, if they want to add a default password or setup multiple accounts and restrict access to their own machine, they can of course do it on all of these operating systems, including LindowsOS, even though none default that way.

2) User feedback on Linux-based desktop OS
by prostoalex

Since the Lindows PCs have been selling for a while, your marketing and customer service folks must have gotten some kind of feedback from current or prospective users.

What are the things people ask for? What are some things general users would like to see in Lindows or Linux-based desktop distributions that aren't there yet?

Robertson

When we started Lindows.com we believed that software installation was extremely difficult for most users and the biggest obstacle impeding widespread desktop adoption. So we invested considerable engineering in Click-N-Run http://www.lindows.com/clicknrun, which makes software installation (including downloading, menu items, icons, MIME types, etc.) in LindowsOS a one-click experience. It's far superior to anything Microsoft Windows XP has.

Since then, we've heard from consumers about what they want or think is missing in a desktop operating system. The number one item people thought was missing was virus protection. (This surprised me and wouldn't have been my guess; more on this topic in a later question.)

There are some key areas of hardware support which no desktop has today which users consistently bring up including: USB wireless support, Plug & Play USB drives (flash, hard drive and CD/RW), firewire and ACPI (power management for laptops). We hope to address most of these in our next release of LindowsOS version 4.0 coming shortly.

On the software side, it's amazing how quickly the community is filling application holes and a real testimony to the advances is making. Six to twelve months ago the list of “missing” software applications was different then it is today. For those seeking a Visual Basic-like program, Gambas (www.lindows.com/gambas), has made great strides. GAIM www.lindows.com/gaim has emerged as a solid meta-IM client, etc. The biggest individual holes today are probably an online banking aware personal finance program (ala Quicken) and a web development tool that is tightly integrated for creation and management such as FrontPage or Dreamweaver. (We'll announce an very cool, affordable product available in Click-N-Run next week which addresses the online banking need.) Video games is an entire product category missing for Linux. There are some great new companies like GarageGames (http://www.garagegames.com), but the high profile games are absent. Finally, video streaming is weak on desktop . None of the big three codecs (QuickTime, Real, Windows Media) have shown any real commitment to offering support. I think there's a real opportunity for one company to commit to gain the upper hand on the others with a true cross platform solution.

3) Should Linux Remain a Cult Object for Geeks?
by reallocate

Do you think the hostility toward Lindows that characterizes some members of the "community" can be attributed to their desire that Linux remain a "geeks only" cult object?

Robertson

Linux can literally save consumers billions of dollars on software, so I sure hope we can bring it to the masses – that's really our business.

I attended UCSD and as part of my major I was required to take an assembly language programming class. It was one of the computer science “weeder” classes where 60% of students fail or drop out. I struggled through it with a passing grade and had a great sense of accomplishment. The next year the major requirements were changed alleviating the assembly language requirement. I have to admit I wasn't happy with this decision since it meant that those sharing my degree after me didn't have to go through the same torturous experiment.

Until recently, it was a badge of honor to get a Linux desktop running. LindowsOS makes it possible to install in 3 minutes and have it auto-recognize all your components and then install most software with a single mouse click. Those who went through the “weeder” class path naturally won't be that excited.

4) Wine?
by IamTheRealMike

When you started, you put a lot of effort into Wine, sponsoring things like WineConf. That didn't work out, but Wine improves constantly, as the latest releases of CrossOver and WineX show. Do you think you'll ever return to it someday, or are you disillusioned with the whole thing?

Robertson

We really respect Jeremy White, Codeweavers and the rest of the Wine development team, but we did move away from Wine sometime ago. It was really a financial decision. Here's the analysis we went through. Microsoft makes roughly half of their profits from selling their operating system and half selling their office suite. If LindowsOS users still have to depend on Microsoft's office suite then they will only be able to save money on half of their software purchases. Additionally, they'll still have to deal with restrictive licensing, activation codes, endless security issues and expensive upgrade options. Undoubtedly Microsoft would continue to use their might to bully computer users who use one part of Microsoft's offerings into using the others, like they do now with Microsoft Word costing $349 and Microsoft Office priced at $399. We really need to move to a Microsoft-free computing solution to realize dramatic savings.

We thought it much better to continue to focus on the ease of use, but invest our energies in promoting and polishing native programs rather than legacy Micrsoft Windows based programs. This way we can save consumers considerable money on the OS and the other largest expenditure – the office suite. Another critical development is that the StarOffice/OpenOffice products really made major advances. We can now comfortably endorse and distribute these products.

While we stopped promoting Microsoft Windows program capability, we strongly emphasize file format compatibility which we think is critical. People often have a need to open and edit a doc, xls or ppt file and that's what we give them. By focusing on affordable programs, we can give computer users these capabilities for the lowest price.

5) MP3.com in retrospect
by prostoalex

Looking back at MP3.com, what would you do differently if you were to start the music service business all over?

Do you think MP3.com was a good business idea in the first place? Do you think the sale of the site to Vivendi Universal was a good idea?

Robertson

Our goal at MP3.com was to bring digital music to the masses and I think we made a lasting impact and left the world a better place then we found it. We fought hard in congress, courts and in the business world to make MP3 a universal standard because it was the best thing for music fans who were our ultimate customers. Today MP3 is a universal standard, DRM schemes have been thwarted, portable players are legal, virtually all hardware supports MP3, so consumers are in a relatively good place because they can freely move their music around.

We didn't accomplish everything we wanted to do. We championed the concept of a “Music Service Provider” and backed the concept up with phenomenal technology which would store a user's entire music collection online and zap it to any device via an open API (PC, portable, phone, car, CDR, etc) with a single mouse click. Licensing challenges, restrictive law interpretation, and music industry reluctance to embrace new technology torpedoed our efforts on this front. It's interesting to hear the press gush over Apple's itunes “one click” purchase and load to portable player features – something we had two years ago. I think we laid important groundwork to make this happen, but missed delivering on our entire vision.

I sold MP3.com at a time and price that I thought was good for our shareholders and have no regrets and wouldn't change any decision I made.

6)Wal-Mart
by Znonymous Coward

Microtel and Lindows have put togther some great deals for Wal-mart.com; How are sales going?

Will the Microtel + Lindows PCs ever make it to Wal-Mart store shelves?

Robertson

Sales are strong - we have the best selling products at Walmart.com. I'm confident that success will lead to retail store distribution on retailers' store shelves. We're waiting until our next version (4.0) to distribute LindowsOS in major outlets. The quality needs to be there to satisfy everyday (non-technical) computer users. I can't stress how critically important this is to the success of desktop Linux.

Linux MUST be preinstalled on computers to be a sustainable business. The Microsoft stranglehold on OEMs must be cracked to change the dynamics of the PC business. Until this happens, no desktop Linux company should be considered a viable longterm company.

7) PATENTING ONE-CLICK-INSTALL
by neitzsche

Dear Mr. Robertson,

Could you please update me on your efforts to patent your one-click-software-update solution?

If you are granted such a patent, do you plan on allowing the open source community free (beer/speech/both?) licensing?

Robertson

We don't have a patent on Click-N-Run and have not filed a patent application. I'm not a big believer in method patents. Patents need to be “non-obvious”. I'm not sure “one click anything” is patentable or should be – whether an order process (think Amazon) or software installation routine.

8) Viruses
by minus_273

Not having viruses is one of the upsides of . Why do you sell a virus scanner for Linux?

Shouldn't you be presenting the lack of viruses as one of the reasons to switch?

Robertson

I shared your viewpoint initially, but then we heard from users and discovered something new. What people thought was most lacking from LindowsOS that prevented everyday use was “virus protection”. I was surprised by this result so we talked to users to understand their logic. It turns out that they have been so traumatized by the virus problem on Microsoft Windows that it has shaped their view of the world. Many told us they would NEVER use a personal computer without virus protection because either they had been infected and publicly embarrassed or they knew someone close to them who had. Others said that their corporate policy mandated virus protection or the employee could be disciplined. It's no longer a rational decision, but simply a presupposition to using a computer.

Let me use an analogy. Say someone grew up in the crime-ridden inner city project and then decides to move to the country. No matter how hard that real estate agent tries to use statistics and reasoning to convince them they don't need locks on their doors of the house they're buying, the buyer won't believe it because that's not the world they grew up in. 95% of the world has grown up in a Microsoft virus-infested project. Microsoft has cleverly positioned it as a solely external problem so they don't have to incur the cost to fix it. Bravo to Microsoft for good marketing which has saved them billions in support. Consequently, computer users don't see the root of the problem as shoddy Microsoft programs that if they were to abandon the problem subsides, but rather a fact of life of personal computing. It's a lock on the door they insist on having – regardless of the crime statistics in their area.

So we offer a one-click virus solution powered by Central Command. Virii are a tiny problem today on Linux, but as more desktops migrate it would be foolish to think that it will never be a problem. Just stopping inadvertantly passing on Microsoft Windows vulnerabilities has value to many consumers, as I've attempted to illustrate to many people considering desktop Linux.

9) Click-n-Run vs apt-get
by mahdi13

Lindows is based off of the Debian code and uses apt-get to install software from the Click-n-Run repository. What is in place to keep people from changing the apt-get sources from CnR to the Debian sources and install something like Synaptic (and getting newer, updated packages for free) instead of paying the $99/year (with a few execptions)?

Robertson

It is true that LindowsOS is Debian based, but Click-N-Run is no longer apt-get based. We're now on the third generation of the Click-N-Run architecture and it shares virtually no code with apt-get. As often happens you learn a lot when you do version 1.0. In the first version we learned the limitations of apt-get and were forced to create our own system which would better support personalization, commerce, error handling, and low bandwidth environments. We saw about 60% success rate using the first version of apt-get. Today we achieve over a 90% success rate. And we're able to offer advanced features like Aisles, CNR Express, a full featured commerce engine, and critical features like auto-retry and partial install resume.

LindowsOS users are free to use apt-get or any other feature. We don't remove the command line or limit their ability to install software. They can “open the hood” if they want to. Our goal is to do all the heavy lifting for them for a fair price and build a profitable business. If we can't offer value beyone what they can get from apt-get then they shouldn't give us any money. So that keeps us working hard to offer value.

The Warehouse part of the Click-N-Run (http://lindows.com/warehouse) adds tremendous value as well. Not only do users get an informative graphical representation for many products, but because listings are based on popularity they can get a listing of the most valuable software as measured by the community. We also spend considerable amount of time working on the top 25 programs. We typically customize them to make them work well together and on LindowsOS. Since anyone can browse the information for free, we have even learned that our warehouse is used by many who don't use our products as a resource. We recompile the programs to use the “My Documents” folder by default to resolve one of the common complaints from users that “they can't find their saved files”. That's obviously a simple example, but those are the types of things that make all the pieces work well together for LindowsOS users and will bring desktop to a wider audience.

10) Xbox
by randomErr

What ever possessed you to put up the bounty on the Xbox project?

Robertson

To understand my motivation it's probably important to understand my belief in personal ownership. I believe that if you purchase a product, you should have the right to change it, move it, or alter it for your own personal needs. The seller should have the right to say that you void the warranty or refuse to support it if you change it, but you should still have right as the purchaser to make that choice. This goes for music, software and personal computers. My belief is that as long as consumers have this right, then they'll use that freedom to make choices which steer our society in a generally positive direction. I'd contend we've already witnessed this with MP3.

The Xbox is Microsoft's first attempt at a closed architecture PC. What they learn from the Xbox will be in their next generation closed desktop PC system. Microsoft wants to move to a world where THEY decide what software a computer runs because that will allow them to extract the most money from consumers. They'll position this product with a comforting sounding name like “trustworthy” computing and tout the benefits, but it's really about shifting power over an individual's PC from the buyer to Microsoft. Microsoft will put up a permission gate before any software can be installed which will have a fee associated with it. It will ultimately give Microsoft control over a user's computer. This is why we do not, in any way, limit what software users can install.

I think it's critical that consumers have control over their computers and the ability to decide what software they want to utilize. I look at the Xbox as simply a personal computer. This is why I funded the Xbox reward.

NOTE: I funded it through http://pubsoft.org, Russ Nelson's great concept which I hope catches on.

Consumer freedom is also one of the primary reasons I started Lindows.com. If we can get a substantial number of desktop users we will ensure the longevity of an open architecture PC and ensure that the computing world evolves in a consumer-friendly direction.

Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions.

Comments

Re:Ummm...No

[Octagon Most]

And even at that level of ease vs. security there are inconveniences for less technically inclined users. Having to enter an administrator password every time one installs something under OS X is an annoyance. I won't argue whether it's better (safer, etc.), just that it does introduce a new hurdle for novices. Outside of the geek community that understands and argues about such things is the real world where products need to be delivered with ease of use to the masses.

"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[NewbieSpaz]

"the Click-N-Run architecture and it shares virtually no code with apt-get"

Isn't this a GPL violation, if Click-n-run is utilizing any code at all from Apt? So where is the publicly available source code for click-n-run anyway? I don't see it on their source code FTP site.

Re:"the Click-N-Run architecture..."

[Soko]

Do you have the binary of Click-n-run?

From the GPL FAQ:

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

I read that to mean that you are only required to relese the source to those people you've released the binaries to, and it says nothing of making the source available to the general public (unless the binaries are as well, of course).

In summation: Buy Lindows, install it and then you should be able to get the source to Click-n-run. After that, you can modify and re-distribute it to your hearts content.

Soko

Re:Ummm...No

[Anonymous Coward]

His point on this was that noone gives a crap about wether or not root logs on. The market he is selling to jsut wants to get its dumb work done and then turn the stupid computer off.

Virus protection: same thing. They want 'virus protection' because thats all the rage. Wether or not they KNOW what the fuck virus protection even does, they dont care... they need it.

They're selling an illusion, if you will. Jesus, MS does it all the time. :)

Kidding yourself

[Sanity]

One of the main reasons viruses don't spread as easily on Linux is simply that normal users don't have permission to mess with system files.

I really think that Linux users are kidding themselves when they use this argument. The main reason that there are so few Linux viruses out there is that there are so few desktop Linux installations relative to Windows, making it less fun to write Linux viruses, and less likely for them to spread.

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access, and there are a variety of ways that such a virus could trick the user into giving it root access. Trojan a RPM or DEB, or even just ask the user for their root password with some excuse like "Your hard disk has reached a fragmentation level of 30%, we recommend that you defragment it now. Please enter your root password").

Re:Kidding yourself

[Otter]

A Linux virus could do significant damage without root access...

In general, the idea that users don't have access to anything important is a holdover from when Unix meant large multi-user systems with regular backups. In Linux desktop use, the files in ~ are probably more important and less replaceable than system files. And, as you say, there's no need for root access for an email virus to spread.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Malor]

Yes, all of those things are true. And I imagine that eventually, Linux viruses may become a real problem.

But it is an extra layer of security; virus writers have to work harder to get around the inherent limitations. It's not a free lunch.

On a normal Linux/Unix machine, An HTML-code exploit is not, by itself, going to spawn a remote root shell to Joe Attacker's box; it's going to take either user foolishness ("Type in your root password for maintanance purposes") or a second local exploit to do it.

On a Lindows box, ALL you need is the HTML exploit, no additional stupidity required.

One of the key issues with both real-life and computer-based viruses is containment. You're seeing that now with SARS. If you can slow the rate of infection, you gain time to deploy a response.

Tens of thousands of run-as-root boxes directly attached to cablemodem make a very fertile environment for virus development. An extra layer of security, requiring additional stupidity on someone's part, will slow the spread and help contain the damage.

Any defense can be gotten around, given enough time and effort. That does not, however, imply that no defenses should be deployed. I stand behind my assertion that knowingly defeating one of the main lines of security in an operating system for 'convenience' is grossly stupid.

Re:Kidding yourself

[niom]

What you don't realize is that, for its intended audience, running as non-root does not provide any kind of additional security. I challenge you to provide a realistic example of something nasty that could be done with a Lindows machine that requires root access by the attacker. I can only think of deleting programs and such (but messing with the user configuration would have the same effect for a computer illiterate user) and listening on ports lower than 1024 (hardly a big issue).

Re:Kidding yourself

[sbaker]

EH?

The reason viruses don't exist/spread is because Linux mailers don't treat data as code. Simply reading text files and HTML (sans Java/Javascript) cannot allow a virus to spread by the *simple* mechanisms that allow them to propagate in the Windoze world.

There is also the diversity argument. Under Windoze, there is essentially only one mailer in common use. If you hack a virus to work with that, it'll spread like wildfire because every mail it sends out to replicate itself has a 99% chance of hitting another machine that'll replicate it. In the Linux world, even if all those outgoing mails reach other Linux boxen, the chances are that most of the people it reaches will be running some other mailer and the virus will stop right there. That DRASTICALLY slows down the growth rate of the virus - so even if one were possible, it would spread at a snail's pace and be easy to contain.

I don't think it has anything to do with root access.

However, I regard the idea of running Lindows in root 100% of the time as sheer lunacy. There is such a thing as protecting a user from himself. "rm -R /" should NOT work! If it were both safe and convenient to run in root all the time, most Linux desktop users would do so - however we don't - an overwhelming number of people will voluntarily give up a small measure of convenience in order to gain a measure of protection-from-self-induced-screwups.

Re:Kidding yourself

[ichimunki]

Why shouldn't there be an ability to open the attachment directly with an appropriate application? The extra step of saving the file to disk isn't ultimately making anything safer.

And you're kidding about Outlook right? I've seen email viruses that worked in Pine. All that was required were gullible users who would hasten to forward an email to their entire addressbook because they'd read a line in a scare-mail like "forward this to everyone you know immediately". :)

Just as scary, and not unheard of on Linux is the whole trend towards displaying HTML right in the mailer. What a nightmare.

Re:Kidding yourself

[bbqBrain]

That's an interesting point. One could most likely consider everything above $HOME on a typical Lindows box replaceable. Because the user isn't hacking startup scripts, recompiling the kernel, etc., a reinstallation from CD and update from CnR would restore the PC to its previous state. Losing $HOME, OTOH, would be disastrous.

In light of this, I wonder if Lindows has considered an online backup service. You could have an automated or manually-run agent make a bzipped tarball of $HOME and transfer it to a Lindows server. Hell, I'd go one step further and encrypt that with ``openssl rc4'' and a user-defined password. Tack on an interface for excluding specified directories and a N-megabyte limit, and I think you have a killer service.

Re:Kidding yourself

[niom]

passwd somethingdifferentthatyoudontknowabout

Not a very realistic example; it would be immediately detected (and possibly corrected) by the user and of no use to the attacker. Furthermore, running everything as root prevents this problem as there are no passwords. Try again.

rm -rf /

Logged in as normal user: You lose your personal files and some config work you've done.

i.e. what a normal user is most interested in preserving.

If you keep backups anywhere you're ok.

It seems to me it's quite easier (and safer) to keep backups of the programs, since they don't change frequently and thus can be burned in CDs. And if your non-root user has been "infected" the trojan/virus can keep deleting your documents until you reinstall the system -- the same thing you'd have to do if the attacker had root access. If you have already lost your documents (which could happen root or non root), reinstalling a few programs from CDs is the least of your worries.

Re:Kidding yourself

[dsplat]

you are right... it needs Microsoft Outlook.

And when someone finds a security hole in a commonly used version of Mozilla or Evolution, that could hit a significant percent of desktop Linux users. If we make the assumption that the number of such users is going to grow, I think it is safe to assume that they are not as likely to use something that doesn't look like a Windows e-mail client. They want to make the transition as simply as possible.

There will be Linux viruses. We will get hit. Currently, the smaller installed base and the diversity of distributions, client software, kernel versions, etc. is making Linux harder to target. If 90% of desktop users were using Linux, and 80-90% of those all used the same e-mail client, browser, and word processor, Linux would provide a rich target environment. More virus writers would target it.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Alan Cox]

It stops being about program security at a point as your user base grows. While there is no excuse for the shoddy UIs in things like Windows that made it natural to click Ok to "a fun thing fred sent" the ultimate target nowdays is the user, because users are the weakest part of the system.

Thats why things like SELinux or the Debian RSBAC Linux are so important. There is a real need to make sure any user can work out which end is the barrel without pulling the trigger

Re:Kidding yourself

[Azureflare]

Isn't it better that we make ourselves harder to hit though? That's why it's important that the linux community continues creating quality coded products, without easy-access holes. Yes, people will find vulnerabilities. Is there a system that will never have vulnerabilities? That's like the notion of "100%"..You can protect 99.99999% of the time, but pure freak chance will always get you in the end. But at least those vulnerabilities will be fewer (hopefully?) than microsoft's products. At least the damn script kiddies won't be able to send out viruses? I remember when some Microsoft high-up guy was speaking on some major security hazard in Windows XP home edition (It was on grc.com a while back), he said (Basically) Why should we make it hard for hackers? They will find a way, so we shouldn't waste time trying to prevent it.

OK, they want to save costs, but leave the users out in the cold. NOT the people I want coding my operating system/office/internet browser. Until they take a firm view about actual "security", I will not trust them. Not that I really matter..I'm just a consumer; They could probably care less how I think of them.

Re:Kidding yourself

[Sj0]

The extra step of saving the file to disk isn't ultimately making anything safer.

It most certainly does. Just remember that for the longest time, everyone KNEW that viruses couldn't be spread by looking at e-mails. nowadays, just looking at it in the preview pane is enough to infect your system and send it to everyone on your list if you haven't patched and secured Outlook Express.

The behaviour you're describing is a result of idiocy. Outlook viruses make it so non-idiots can infect their systems my doing something mundane and not paticularly stupid at all (reading an e-mail isn't stupid. Opening foreign executables can be.)

Mac OS X doesn't run as root!!!

[NivenHuH]

Question #1: Why was it decided that Lindows would always run as 'root' by default?

"Take a Microsoft Windows XP or Mac OS X machine out of the box and use it and it operates in a similar manner to LindowsOS ? the first person to touch it can do whatever they want."

And Mac OS X runs a *NIX base and doesn't run everything as root.. >=P Everything makes use of sudo, wheel users, etc.. *shrug* Sounds like he didn't really have a valid answer to justify this... (They could have written the tools to do the administrative functions.. just like RedHat has done..)

A few things

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

..I think the larger issue here is how do you balance security vs. ease of use. We are committed to providing a secure desktop operating system and make policy decisions about how to achieve a secure but usable system. ..

Sounds like PR speak to me...I could easily see Dilbert's boos (Bossbert?) saying this.

In addition, I find it very interesting in regards to his talk about viruses and how users have become accustomed to the viruses that "ravage" the windows world.

It's amazing to me that people will even *consider* it part and parcel of dealing with Windows that they can't even fathom there are alternatives (i.e. virus free ways of dealing with things), sad really!

Re:Ummm...No

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Sorry, Mac OS X is not running as root out of the box.

While the first user is an Admin, they do no have root access, there are many directories they can't see, and they can't go in and trash stuff in another users account.

While you point out an interesting distinction (BSD/OSX's difference between admin and root) it is beside the point.
Robertson's contention is that commodity PCs aren't running as multi-user systems. The person who powers it on is the user, the admin, the only one using it. There are no "other users" to trash.
The tradeoff is convenience/security. Some claim that it's better to spend your day-to-day operations in an unpriv account, and intentionally change to a priv account when those privs are needed. Robertson's claim is that non-geeks don't want to make that distinction or take that extra step, and the reduction in protection is worth it for ease of use and the resulting acceptance.

He's in an interesting position by pushing an OS for folks without CS (or generally geeky) backgrounds. My linux boxes all have non-priv accounts, and I use sudo when I need it. To be quite honest though, I'm typing on a win2k box, and my user has full Administrator privs. It is also a single-user system. There are no other users who's data needs to be protected. Am I more vulnerable to OS damage from inadvertant actions? Sure. Do I care enough to give up the convenience, not really.

--

I'm impressed

[u38cg]

While I don't agree with everything he says, I have to say he's far better informed and making far better decisions than I thought he was.

For the first time, someone is pushing a Linux distribution at customers with regard only to what customers want, not what geeks feel like providing.

He has a serious handle on the things that will crack open the door to mass acceptance; pre-installation...simple installation - criticise the ethics of CnR all you like, at the end of the day it is designed to work seamlessly without specialist knowledge, and precious little else manages it.

He also seems to have a good handle on what freedom means in a practical sense; the ability to control your computer - witness the Xbox bounty, leaving in apt-get, and so on.

Lindows won't ever be my cup of tea, but I suspect that in a few versions down the road it will be the ideal Christmas present for Granny.

Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure that the lindows/microtel boxes are anything but cheap white boxes that people install their pirated copies of windows software on....no one likes talking about this, but I'd imagine that many of those lindows machines being sold are being taken home, run once or twice as a linux machine , and then wiped and installed as a windows machine.

Call me a pessimist, but the people who have the numbers (lindows and microtel) aren't likely to release them. How many people sign up for click & run vs the numbers of machines sold....

Re:Why the Walmart Thing is Bogus

[cyberformer]

This is why Windows XP has product activation --- so that people can't install their old copy on a new machine.

Someone is really trying to take Linux mainstream!

[1337_h4x0r]

Instead of saying "well why should we pay you for apt-get" and such, why can't we embrace this, work to extend their apps and do what we can to make this work? Isn't this what we wanted? A non-MS alternative that everyday people can use? I don't understand the hostility towards Lindows thats prevalent on /.

I'm Impressed

[AlabamaMike]

Hats off to this CEO. First off, I'm very impressed by his stance on patents. To find a CEO today that shares his vision of "non-obvious" patents is a chore. I like to think of most CEOs as "IP Raiders." Next, his comparing Microsoft's code base to a ratty housing project is also on point. It's good to be reminded how a company with both the monitary resources and marketing might can actually "mold" reality into something that shelters their position. The virus problem in Windows isn't all MS's fault, but there's more than enough blame to go around. Finally, his point on the XBox is very important, and I am enthralled to see it stated so well. Closed PC architectures are an upcoming menance, and if history is to be our guide here it's clear that we have no protection from our government(s). MS got off scot-free from the anti-trust action (something not even the Bell System was able to do.) They'll probably get away with this as well, but at least we'll have a choice with gentlemen like Mr. Robertson out there. A giant thank you to him for his response, and props to the /. community for coming out with some excellent questions.

-A.M.

Optimism

[sonarniche]

Even tho Lindows gets a lot of flack, Im impressed there's a CEO in this country that actually has personal beliefs and moral stakes that drive his ambition as much as business sense.

I just gotta wonder how long trying to be a good guy can last.

Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[Octagon Most]

I have a differing opinion on this concept of consumers having "control over their computers and the ability to decide what software they want to utilize." Surely this is not a popular opinion around here, but shouldn't we accept as legitimate the concept of subsidized hardware based on a subscription? This is most typified by wireless phones. Anyone can get a free mobile phone by signing up for a wireless service contract and agreeing to pay the fees for a specified period of time, typically one or two years. Part of those fees goes toward the initial cost of the device that the user got for free or a subsidized cost. Now even if we don't like it can't we accept that the X-Box is priced the same way? The X-Box buyer gets the unit cheaply (subsidized if you will) because of the condition that it is locked to specific software - authorized games that generate fees for Microsoft.

Instead of arguing that consumers should have some inherent right to do as they wish with any hardware they buy shouldn't we fight for the option to purchase such unrestricted hardware at an unsubsidized price? It's unrealistic to suggest that Microsoft or any other company provide cheap, even below-cost, hardware and not recoup their development costs. And it wouldn't look like such an attractive project to get Linux running on a $2000 unrestricted version, would it? I just think it is fair to accept that it is not just restricted hardware locking you into an evil vendor, but rather subsidized hardware purchased with an explicit service contract.

Re:Subsidized hardware vs. consumer control

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the deal:

If Microsoft (or any producer of low margin and/or subsidised hardware) wants to lock consumers into a contract agreeing that the consumer does not actually own the hardware, they should make the consumer sign a contract at the time of purchase.

As it is, you pay the money and take home the Xbox. That Xbox is YOURS to do with as you please. Any suggestions of implicit non-ownership of purchased hardware is an attempt to errode contract law and shift the balance of power to the seller.

He's joking, right?

[SlashChick]

You know, it's pretty funny that something that Microsoft has been trying to move away from for several years (lack of a true multi-user system) is something Michael is touting as a "feature." Since when is it a "feature" to take away something that is not only more secure, but also the default in the latest version of every OS (from Windows XP to Mac OS X)?

Michael says "[T]here's less need to share computers and have multi-user accounts with all that overhead and complexity." I don't buy it, Michael. If this is the case, why aren't we still seeing Windows 98's one-user system? XP comes with a really slick multi-user interface that allows people to easily change passwords, set computer accounts as Limited or Administrator, and even has the ability to switch users and keep multiple users logged on at the same time. Ironically, in this case, Microsoft is the one giving choice to users, where a Linux vendor is taking it away. (And if you say it's unfair to compare Lindows to Windows XP, I say that if someone's going to buy a new computer, they're either going to get Lindows or an XP box, so it's very fair to compare it.)

Michael continues by saying "There are some key areas of hardware support which no desktop has today which users consistently bring up including: USB wireless support, Plug & Play USB drives (flash, hard drive and CD/RW), firewire and ACPI (power management for laptops)."

Which is, of course, bullshit. Both Windows 2000 and XP (especially XP) have great support for all of the above. Even Windows ME (which is probably one of the worst versions of Windows ever) has built-in support for USB drives. In fact, even Mandrake and Red Hat automatically pop up a dekstop icon when you plug in a USB drive. Who are you kidding, Michael?

Of course, then he has to spout off about Microsoft Office pricing: "...Microsoft Word costing $349 and Microsoft Office priced at $399."

Michael, I don't know where you're buying your software, but I picked up my copy of Microsoft Office for $180. That includes Publisher, Word, Excel, and Outlook. Want Powerpoint? Buy Pro; it's $100 more. Sure, Microsoft may have bad business practices, but 4 programs I use often (most of them daily) for $180? That's $45 each. Windows XP Home from the same site (or many others) is $86.95, and I picked up my fully legitimate copy of XP Pro for $125. Wait... so, Michael, explain to me why Windows XP Home (fully licensed for as long as you own your PC) is $86.95, and Lindows is $99.00 for one year of access?

Look, I'm no Microsoft zealot, and I administer a ton of Linux servers (just read my /. journal.) But this guy is a slimeball. I completely agree on the cost-effectiveness of Linux on Web/database servers, where Microsoft's product is $725. But his version of Linux for the home user is not only less secure than Windows XP (and he can't find a good reason for that, other than that earlier versions of Windows had the same crappy security), but it's more expensive than Windows XP Home!

I fully support Linux, and I think it's caused Microsoft to really have to make better products. Lindows, however, is a joke, and it makes the community look bad with its lax security and nickel-and-diming of the average consumer. I feel sorry for anyone whose sole experience with Linux is Lindows.

Re:He's joking, right?

[geomon]

Hmmm.... A slimeball?

He has at least put himself out there to be critiqued. When did BillG ever put himself out for questioning (re: business practices, trashing open source, purchaser ownership issues)?

The fact that you have grist for the mill makes him less of a slimeball than some CEOs I've read interviews from.

At least he doesn't front a company convicted of a crime in a federal court.

Re:He's joking, right?

[_xeno_]

XP Home defaults as having everyone run as an Administrator. In the home edition they are really intended to allow different users to have different settings. (So one user can have a mountain wallpaper and another can have a garden wallpaper.) This is why by default accounts have no passwords and trying to set a password on the account offers up a scary dialog box asking if the user wants to proceed.

For home users, always running at "root" level is the right thing to do. The computer is supposed to be a tool for them, it shouldn't be restricting what they can do with "Permission denied" messages. (These just scare users, anyway. It's hard to teach users the idea of "privileged" accounts, and even if you do, most just demand having their normal account elevated in privilege. After all, it's their computer and they would never do something to harm it...)

Besides, I always run as Administrator on my XP Pro machine anyway. It's far too much of a hassle not to since every half of all programs demand Administrator rights anyway. (And of the remaining half, half of them actually require Administrator rights but just fail silently, or crash outright.) Of course, of all of these, maybe 10% actually require them...

The security features available in XP are mainly intended to be used in a buisness setting. At work where computers are managed by IT, they make sense. But locking people out of their home computers frustrates users more than giving them full access to use and possibly destroy their machines. It'll take time to educate people about how to protect themselves by taking full advantage of the security options their OS offers. But while many simple programs require Administrator privileges (like CD-burning programs, most games (attention publishers who add copy protection schemes to games that otherwise wouldn't require Admin privileges...) and other types of software (Winamp 3 requires "Power Users" or higher, or else it crashes without an error message)...), people will need to be given full access to their computer so that they can use it.

I used to run as a "User" in Win2k, but gave up when half the things I did required me to Run As Administrator anyway. (That and I had to elevate myself to "Power User" to use Winamp3, as mentioned above. I mean, c'mon!)

While running as Administrator/root may not be the most intelligent idea, it is far easier for home computers that Lindows is targetted at. Users want full control over their PC - it's their PC, it's there to do their bidding, and they're going to demand control over it. As long as it can be overridden by users who want that added bit of security, I don't see a problem with having the normal user running as root. It may be "safer" not to, but users want control over their computer.

Re:He's joking, right?

[Zathrus]

I don't buy it, Michael. If this is the case, why aren't we still seeing Windows 98's one-user system?

We are. XP Home defaults to it. XP Pro lets you run that way as well... in fact, you have to go through a good bit to set Home up otherwise (and, admittedly, you have to convince Pro to run that way as well - but it's easily done).

Yeah, so you can setup additional users. Whoop de doo. You can do that on Lindows or any other Linux install too.

Which is, of course, bullshit. Both Windows 2000 and XP (especially XP) have great support for all of the above.

Way to take things out of context!

Read the question. Read it carefully. It was specifically asking about features missing on Linux based desktop distros. There was nothing about Windows systems. Hell, by the same token you should be flaming him over the virus protection tidbit -- since there's been virus protection for DOS/Windows systems since at least DOS 3.3!

And while there is sporadic support for everything listed, it's certainly not as clean as it is under Windows... which is what he's trying to get at.

Of course, then he has to spout off about Microsoft Office pricing

He was making a point about where MS gets its revenue from. And the prices given were MSRP. You want to bitch and kvetch about that? Then bitch at MS for absurd MSRPs. Hell, bitch at the entire freaking world, since virtually nobody has MSRPs that actually relate to reality.

Your comments about actual price and relative value stand though, and are good points. I disagree about the relative security of the two products though... I run XP and Linux at home, and while there are exploits for both, I'm far more concerned about breaches on my XP desktop than my Linux server... although since I never use Outlook and have switched to Mozilla from IE my concerns have decreased significantly.

I'm a bit shocked ...

[pantropik]

I was expecting a lot of CEO-speak and doubletalk (redundant?). You know, "productizing" and stuff. I wasn't expecting his answers to come across as candid and conversational. He didn't "boost" Lindows nearly as much as I figured he would. Maybe I'm just easily fooled ...

One of the questions that really caught my attention was the one about apt-get.

Does apt-get break ClickNRun? I'd be willing to bet you'd end up with a seriously mangled system if you dist-upraded using apt, added some packages, then tried to use CNR. Does anyone know how this is handled?

root and Lindows and Windows

[oaf357]

It's easier to say here's root then to restrict users. That's why it's done because a Lindows desktop is essentially designed for one user. The cost of one Dell gets you 4 Lindows OS PCs. So it makes sense, in a way. Remember Lindows is for the desktop, only.

Windows 9x/ME/XP have been doing this for years and it's obviously worked quite well. But, those OSes are designed for ease of use so everyone becomes "administrator" so that they can do whatever they need to do.

Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[reallocate]

Isn't it about time to ask if the very notion of a "root" user is baggage from Unix that, just maybe, doesn't fit well into a single-user desktop paradigm? Or, the whole concept of mapping privilege levels to different groups of users?

A single-user machine has, (ahem) a single user. Surely, we can keep these machines secure without bolting on concepts developed to resolve other problems?

Re:Is "Root or Non-Root" Old Think?

[MKalus]

How single user is a machine these days?

I mean really, does everyone in the family have their own PC? Or do you share it?

I think if the latter is the case, multiple user accounts make sense.

M.

Re:Ummm...No

[SCHecklerX]

I beg to differ

Most households only have one computer. No network. no multiple machines. Johnny, Dad, Mom, and Suzie all use the same computer. A multi-user OS is the proper way to do this, so that Dad doesn't have to worry about Johnny fscking up his files, or if dad is the administrator, of johnny, suzie, or mom fscking up the computer system files.

Unfortunately, Lusers have been trained that it is 'ok' to trample all over the system, fscking up the settings for everybody. Linux has always been a multi-user system, so it is TRIVIAL to have several people in the household share a single computer, yet all have their own environment to work in. My ex-g/f and her two children certainly have no problems with the linux box I built for them.

Win2k was a step in the right direction, but most windoze programs are not multi-user aware still.

Why they will succeed (or fail)

[nuggz]

Our goal is to do all the heavy lifting for them for a fair price and build a profitable business. If we can't offer value beyone what they can get from apt-get then they shouldn't give us any money.

Wow a one line business plan, and a corresponding one line risk. If more companies did this, maybe the dot-com crash wouldn't be a problem.

We should do something useful that people will pay for.
If we don't do it better then cheaper alternatives we won't make it.

Great, more power to him.

[stile]

Frankly, I don't give a crap if he's providing a non-MS alternative to "normal" people. I run linux because I'm a power user, and it does exactly what I want -- no more, no less (and it's free). When I was 16 and using linux, I was all about the "down with Microsoft" movement. But now, I realize just how much work is going to go into bringing Linux to the masses, because the fundamental philosophies of Linux are not compatible with today's end user.

I think that Lindows is doing a good thing here, and I say, more power to them. But I also think that it probably still has quite a long way to go. When it gets there, we'll end up with something that runs on a Linux kernel alright... but it won't be Linux like we know it. That's not bad at all, because the standard user won't be happy with Linux in the slightest. That's not bad either, because Linux was made for and by power users.

So I don't feel the need to spread the Linux gospel to non-geeks at all. I'll let someone else make his money doing that. Then again, I'm not hostile to it either... nor am I hostile toward Microsoft, except in that I'm forced to purchase their OS bundled with many standard kinds of computers. The point is: I've found what I'm happy with, and that's pretty much all that I care about.

The root issue

[niom]

I don't understand why so many people get their panties in a bunch because Lindows runs as root. Remember this is intended to be run as a single user system, and by people who are not tech-savvy.

If the normal-use account is compromised, what is the big advantage if it's not the root account? It would be real easy to deceive the user into giving up his root password, and that would not even be necessary to do the most damage, namely deleting/infecting/trojanning the user documents.

What is lost to the hacker/virus if it can't get root? Not being able to run a webserver at port 80? Not something to make so much noise about, I think.

Re:"Closed Architecture"...My Eye

[revery]

He lambastes MS for their "closed architecture" Xbox when Lindows' Click-n-Run is essentially the same thing. Sure, you can run other appps

It not even close to the same. You can't run other apps on the X-Box. Lindows lets you run apt-get if you want, but if you don't know how/don't want to take the time you can pay them to handle the process for you...

On the X-Box you have to crack it to run unlicensed code. On Lindows you always run as root, on the X-Box, you can't run as root at all...

They're capitalizing on Linux being hard to use!

And you probably didn't build your house all by yourself, and you probably pay a mechanic when you don't know how to fix your car, and you probably don't cut your own hair, or cook every meal at home. Every business capitalizes on the something being hard/inconvenient...

Sheesh, give the guy a break. What changes would you make to his company that would increase profits from selling Linux to the masses?

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

How hard can it be...

[jamesc]

... to make a SetUID root installer that only works for the install CD and their .deb repository?

Let the user run unprivileged and free of worries about corrupting the system. That would be a real value-add and improvement over Win9X. Think about it Mr. Robertson....

Re:Interesting and Insightful

[BeBoxer]

I disagree with him about the "running as root" issue. I understand his logic, but a "root only" Linux box is a Linux box that might very well come to need its virus scanner! Non-priv'd users are a big part of why Linux viruses are NOT a big issue.

Um, actually I don't think this is true at all. The biggest "virus" problem in Windows land is the various email "virus". Technically worms, but the point is the same. And these abuse the easy code-execution abilities for Microsoft mail clients. If Ximian Evolution automatically executed any .pl or .sh attachement you'd have the same problem on Linux.

With respect to true viruses, which infect files, privledges help in theory, but aren't going to help much in practice. Why? The system is spending all of it's time running as one user, and that user is quite capable of infecting their own execution environment. A virus could simply drop a copy of itself onto the system and tweek the users LD_LIBRARY_PATH in order to get itself executed at will. Sure, the user isn't technically changing the system binaries but the effect is the same. Well, you say, other users are safe from the infection right? That would be true if the system had any other users. But on a single user system, "infecting" the single user means that 100% of the users on the system are infected.

Sure, not running as root keeps the virus from actually formatting the disk. But since a virus is quite capable of trashing the users settings, environment and documents it's kind of a moot point. On a single user system "rm -rf ~" is just as effective as "rm -rf /". The problem is really that standard Unix privledges are far too coarse to be of any real use on a single user system. They are incapable of protecting the user from themselves (or more accurately, their processes.) Hopefully the work the NSA is doing on Linux will lead to a system where fine-grained privledges can actually be used to protect the user from themselves. But until that gets developed, I think Lindows is taking a perfectly reasonable approach.

flame me if you will..

[Squarewav]

but, I kinda agree with the root issue, when I use winxp I run it in single user mode (i.e. as admin) why? you ask couse I want to be able to put files anyware I want, c:\downloads c:\shared d:\movies ect.. I dont want to fuck around with file permissions or having everything stuck in "My Documents" much less login as admin just to install software. I know what your thinking "But you'll get viruses up the ass", you know what for the past 8 years that I've been useing windows, I have never gotin a windows virus( knock on wood). When I run linux however I do have a user and root acount mostly couse many programs bitch if you try running as root

virus protection

[skt]

That is a good interview.. an interesting find about the virus protection too. I think this goes to show that the average computer user and the media just do not understand the basics about computer viruses. I see this quite a bit, where users are deleting jdbgmgr.exe and wondering how somebody got access to their email and sent bulk messages (klez). I wouldn't expect the average email-sending, web-browsing, .doc-writing user to understand technical details about viruses, but maybe there is a problem here?

The media doesn't help much either, by making announcements without consulting someone before warning their viewers/listeners about the latest virus threat. Also, ignorant or uninformed techs can be quick to blame every problem on a "virus" when they do not know the answer to something.. And then there is the word of mouth method that Robertson mentions.. I had not thought of that one but it makes a lot of sense.. uninformed users telling each other of how their computer was destroyed by a virus when in fact the computer may have stopped working for other reasons.

So as a result, virus scanners seem to be required now to operate a Windows computer.. even inside of corporations where email is scanned at the mail-server level. I would say that scanners for other systems are probably not required yet, but they will be if the platform ever becomes popular. Linux-based systems have a lot going for them though to make viruses less of a threat right now though, fragmentation of communications software and better security histories for some of the more common ones (mozilla, netscape 7) come to mind.

My opinion on scanners for the corporate desktop is that the users should not know that the scanner is there. Any modern scanner can do automatic updates in the background.. nobody is going to see it or messages from it unless some virus manages to sneak passed the email server which scans for viruses and is updated even more frequently than the workstations. The only kind that have been bypassing the servers that I have heard about are the social, hoax viruses.. jdbgmgr.exe and such.

Re:I would pay $99 a year more reasons

[pecosdave]

I would pay $99 a year not to have to

1. locate obscure libraries everytime I want to install something

2. compile obscure libraries that require me to download more obscure libraries everytime I want to install something

3. Install more Gnome components every time I want to install an application that doesn't appear to be a Gnome app for use on my KDE system

4. Compile every program I want to use because binaries aren't available for my distro, but they are for Red Hat, oh did we mention you're going to have to download and install some obscure libraries for that?

Ahhh!!! I don't have broadband at home anymore since moving, and my notebook doesn't have the hardware I need to do what I want, so my software update cycle goes something like

1. decide what I need
2. "borrow" company bandwidth to download it to my notebook
3. Copy software from my notebook to my home machine
4. Find out I need obscure libraries
5. Go back to work, get obscure libraries, source only, binaries not available
6. Take libraries home, not able to compile because they require more obscure libraries
7. Go back to work, get more obscure libraries, different distro. Install anyways
8. Move files from other distro to proper place in my system
9. Fail to compile, need newer/older version of obscure library.

Grrrrr. I like Linux, but Windows has its temptations.

The question for root access is GOOD

[OMG]

You should know one thing about user interfaces:
Tell the users what is dangerous. They _want_ to know that.

So the root "barrier" is actually good. I tell everybody I install Linux on their PCs: As long as you do not enter the root password you cannot break the system. You can only harm you own files."

That makes them very confident in trying stuff out. Because they KNOW it's not dangerous and it won't do big stuff. (OK, the data is still very important, but most of the time you f**k up the system while playing in the registry, right ?).

So I think that root barrier is a bonus. Everybody trying to install a printer should be able to know and enter the root password. On the other hand this barrier also makes the system more fool proof (I have guests sometimes).

Wow!

[theLOUDroom]

I was expecting different answers from some whom so many on /. mistrust (myself included).

While I don't agree with everything Robertson has said, I do find the reasoning behind all his answers to be respectable.

He seems a lot more "in touch" with what's going on than I would have expected and I think his comment on Linux shipping with PCs is a very good point. Basically this is the best slashdot interview I've seen in a long time. Rational, well thought out, answers to important questions, and well worded too. Nothing like that prick Shatner.

I'm not trying to kiss this guy's ass, and I still don't trust him, but I think he just demonstrated a pretty good understanding of the whole Linux on the desktop issue/situation. (Despite some of his comments showing his knowledge of what's out there to be a little out of date.)

any sign of intelligence on /. regarding root?

[dh003i]

This is not a distro targetted at advanced users. As a pretty advanced user, I'm not going to be using Lindows (I installed Gentoo a while ago...that'll put hair on your nuts). Let me check...yep, just making sure, there is no law mandating that any of us 133t's have to use it. Phew. Freedom of choice still exists. But this company is doing a good thing. Incidentally, it's refreshing to see a CEO out there who doesn't use newspeak and cares about something other than $$$$.

Try to understand -- he's not making an OS for advanced computer users. He's not taking away the option to create user accounts. You want an account -- you can ADD one. By the way, all you jerk-offs should NOTE that when you finish installing Gentoo -- a pretty technically orientated distro -- there IS NO USER. ONLY ROOT. That's following the protocol of the install-guide. Look at the Gentoo Install Guide. Nowhere along are you forced to create a user-account, and the install guide doesn't even cover creating a user account, though it does suggest doing so, and references you to their FAQ (I've recommended that they cover how to create a user account at the end of the install guide). So, if you're going to bash Lindows for not having a user/root separation by default, you can only do so consistently if you also bash Gentoo. If you choose to bash Lindows but not Gentoo for this, then you are a hypocrite and are just doing this because you want to bash Lindows because it's easy.

Now, maybe Lindows install process should at some point prompt the user, "Do you want to create a user account?" with no default (I say no default, because if there's a default hard-liner jerk-offs on either side are going to bitch). There would be a Yes and a No option, each explaining the merits of both approaches. Simply put, the word "Easier" should be placed next to "No", and "More Secure" next to "Yes". Because average user's are incapable of reading long paragraphs (see Joel on Software), just leave it at that simplified explanation. Alternatively, Lindows could go the Gentoo route and simply advise users to create a user account after the OS is installed, maybe bring up a step-by-step wizard for how to do it after initial install.

Now, I feel that Robertson has done some good things with Click-'n-Run. I naturally think it would be better if it's GPL'ed, but these guys are a business and have to have some model for making money. Click-'n-Run is their model. They will make money because people will pay for the Click-'n-Run service, and also through their contracts with Walmart (in addition to selling Lindows). If you can think of a way for them to GPL Click-'n-Run and still get $99 a year from people who use it, then please SUGGEST that. Since Robertson wants to have good community-relations, I'm sure he'd appreciate it. He has blatantly said that his business model relies largely on Click-'n-Run succeeding, and that means $99 from it per year for customers using it. The only thing I can think of would be adding a portion of code to Click-'n-Run that only allows it to be run if the user has paid the $99 for that year (by checking some database, whatever) and distributing it under a modified version of the GPL with an additional clause specifying "may not be redistributed/modified with that check disabled".

In regards to other areas, I think he's pretty-much on the 8-ball. Very good analysis of patents -- btw, what moron asked him the question about patenting Click-'n-Run? There was never anything to suggest Lindows wanted a patent on that. And what group of crackpot moderators moderated that one up? There could have been a more useful question posted.

Quite frankly, I think Robertson has a good plan to bring a GNU/Linux distribution to more home users. This means more exposure for GNU/Linux, which means more users will know how to use it, which means more software support and more hardware support, and probably more FS and OSS. Because of the commonalities shared by all GNU/Linux distributions, it will be beneficial for all distributions.

All that said, I think that Lindows would be better off using WindowMaker as their WM.

Why your post is bogus

[jgardn]

First, you are wrong on many levels.

Just because someone buys the machine and doesn't use CnR doesn't mean they have pirated and installed windows on it. First off, where are they going to obtain a copy of windows? Do you really think they are downloading and burning their own copy of windows?

If they do install windows, most likely they will install a version that they have already bought and paid for and have handy.

If they don't, then they are probably not using the machine at all, or they are satisfied with the one or two free apps they got. (probably email and mozilla).

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, they bought the machine and installed a different distribution on it. As one poster mentioned, it doesn't take much to turn it into a debian machine. As any linux guy knows, it doesn't take much to turn it into any linux distribution.

Don't accuse people of piracy you don't know, and you certainly don't have evidence of. You sound like Bill Gates when you do. Remember, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country, unlike certain other countries.

root versus non-root...

[talks_to_birds]

"...Most security compromises are external attacks, not root vs. non-root issues. ..."

This evades the real root versus non-root user issue, and suggests a major ignorance of the *NIX operating system family.

root is all-powerful.

For a beginning user, this power can be absolutely fatal.

I started in UNIX in 1985; I've been working with Linux since the mid-90's; just 6 weeks ago, while working too hastily as root and with the indiscrminate use of a dot and a star, I managed to chown an entire file system to that of a mere user.

It wasn't the archtypical rm -rf * but it had an equivalent effect: all the files are *there* but almost nothing worked...

That's the real issue of root versus non-root: too much power, used with too little thought.

Poof! All gone!

How's the beginning user ever going to understand what went wrong? And if they do it once, will they ever come back to Linux again?

t_t_b

Re:root versus non-root...

[hkmwbz]

Excuse me, but what novice user will be playing around with chown? And since there's only one user and he is root anyway, what possible damage can he do with chown?

In fact, Lindows seems to be aimed at people who want point and click rather than a command line interface.

How is this worse than Windows 98 or XP Home, where there is only one user, and that user is "all-powerful"?

I don't get it. Why this attitude towards doing something which is uncommon in the Linux world? He isn't aiming his product at "1337 h4xx0rz", but at people who want point and click simplicity! Elitist bastards need not apply.

I really like this guy.

[$beirdo]

This guy's a consumer advocate. That means a LOT to me in these days of corporate sneakiness and underhanded deception.

Say what you will about running as root by default, but isn't that how most of his competing products (read: Windows [^NT|XP]) essentially work?

I think we should support and encourage Robertson and his company!

Re:Ummm...No

[TotallyUseless]

Thing 1 you have to know: How to Double Click an icon (Netinfo Manager)
Thing 2 you have to know: How to use a menu.

Re:Sounds like one of the good guys...

[zulux]

When people say Windows, they mean MS Windows, it is that simple.

Obviously you're not a computing professional.

I had "windows" running on a 6809 processor-based workstation before Mircosoft even had multiple prosesses in their toy OS.

The XBox hack is stupid. If you hate MS so much that you want to use Linux, why install it on an MS machine.

A 'hack' doesent even have a central nervous system, let alone a brain - your admonition of it's state leaves me to conclude that you same could be said of you.

PS, I don't hate MS - they *used* to be the good guys, when a decent OS cost $1500 minimum and a decent word-processor cost $1000 - they sold their stuff for 5% of those amounts. It wasen't the best, but it was cheep.

Now the market has caught up.

He's marketing to consumers, NOT GEEKS!

[Newer Guy]

There's one flaw in most of the posts I see here. Most of you (with a few notable exceptions) talk this guy down because he does things like using root as default, sells a virus scanner, has a built in firewall, etc. One even asked: " Why the need for a firewall when you can take an old machine, put XXX on it, configure it as a firewall, etc.." The operative word here is YOU. Maybe YOU can do that, but the average consumer shopping at Walmart.com both CAN'T and WON'T do that! Like it or not, computers are mass market items. Microsoft saw this many years ago and made their OS a mass market item too. They even essentially got rid of the DOS command line. Lindows is trying to do the same. Geeks have to ask themselves this: Do I want Linux to become a mass market OS or do I want it to remain a geeky OS?. If your answer is the former, then you MUST EMBRACE Lindows and others like it!! If your answer is the latter, keep running with the command line! Personally, I think there's room for both!! As such, though I run Red Hat on one machine (and spent hours trying to make my on board sound work, only to give up in frustration and spend 50 bucks for a SoundBlaster card) , and Lindows on another (and it found and configured the sound in about 30 seconds), I consider them both to be Linux, and I respect both Red Hat and Lindows for the different, yet so similar things they are trying to do for Linux.