Slashdot Mirror
Lindows Allowed to Use Company Name in Holland
Supp0rtLinux writes "It appears that Lindows/Linspire has finally made some headway against Microsoft in the Netherlands. According this article, the Judge ruled that Linspire's continued, but minimal use of 'Lindows' for legal and trademark purposes doesn't violate Microsoft's trademark. With the US court date on this issue coming up soon, one can only wonder if Microsoft will have effectively cut off its nose to spite its face. And following immediately on the heels of today's Netherlands news, the latest Michael's Minutes from Linspire pegs all the blame for virus problems on Microsoft and basically says that Linux (well, Lindows anyway) is the cure."
But unfortunately, a wise man said about us:
'You think you're a superpower, and everyone else thinks your capital is copenhagen'.
even if there are things he does that I don't like, I must concede he is really relentless and aggressive in pushing lindows
There are some differences between USA and Europe that will give some varying and odd court decisions. Big business has a strong hold of the US courts. The only way they can lose is if anyone even stronger is the counterpart, or if a state or country invests heavily in the suit to gain even larger monetary gains from winning in the court. In Europe, this is rarely the case, but on the other hand many European legislators and courts are weak, have little resources and time. In Sweden, for example, the Social Democarat party tends to legislate and vote in the EU parlament often following the US court results and organisation bullying (MPAA, RIAA) Some countries invest time and resources to actually learn what the cases are about, and court cases involving Microsoft etc, can in fact be lost by the larger companies, liek in this case.
a jury [...] would be instructed to consider whether "windows" was a generic term before Microsoft introduced software with that name in 1985.
I can understand that such a thing is a different matter in non-English speaking countries, like The Netherlands.
How could they ever not say that it is a generic term in English speaking countries, like the USA?. I look in awe to the fact that such a thing has to be considerd.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
And the security subject comes up when they run the user as root?? Its having having a blind man sell you glasses...
Really? So all the holes in Outlook through the years haven't meant anything?
And the fact that all home users were "root" by default prior to XP means nothing?
And the fact that unless set up differently, even in XP the average user is "root" is not an issue?
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure....
What you have said isn't really true. One of the major strengths of Linux is the lack of a monoculture. Most distributions come with 3 or 4 web browsers, e-mail programs, and media players etc. It would take a very good hacker to find a generic security hole in every program.
The only other option would be to try and exploit a security hole in the Kernel. Given that not everybody runs the same Kernel this would also prove difficult.
The irony of this statement is that Lindows will probably be one of the driving forces in getting Linux viruses popular. By marketing the software to those who are less computer-savvy while making the root user the default user, Lindows is opening up the door for some nasty widespread security exploits. Some of the reasons why viruses have not been a problem under Linux so far has been due to smaller desktop market penetration, heterogeneity, the computer literacy of those who run Linux, and the restricted account privileges of the user. Lindows threatens all of those factors.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
While the "safety by obscurity" factor has some validity and would largely disappear if a larger percentage of people were using GNU/linux, the simple fact is that Linux is much more secure by default.
Think of all those vulnerabilities that are defaults in Windows. Think also about the fact that most Linux distros do not encourage the user to run as "root". Not that Linux has no potential vulnerabilities, but they are much fewer than Windows..
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
For the last time, people: NO. It was the "X Window System".
Go somewhere random
This of course may change if Linux "goes mainstream" as developers start being more concerned that users don't want to get updates every two minutes
Still, the use of update system like up2date mean that this happens relatively painlessly.
Perhaps, though, a patch based system similar to CVS would be a better idea, so as to minimize download times and bandwidth usage.
im in ur
Apparently, Lindows was guilty of this even more recently than Windows. From a July 21, 2002 Washington Post article:
However, for the record, I've seen passing references while googling that indicate this has been fixed. But the point still stands that if you're going to criticize Microsoft for doing this in the past, it's only fair to criticize Lindows for also doing this in the past.
Exactly.
The idea that a virus/worm needs its exploited user to be root to replicate and spread to other people is ludicrous. Almost all recent Windows viruses wouldn't have been particularly hindered if the user wasn't running as root - in most cases, they simply replicate, by email - a situation you don't need to be running as a privileged user to replicate.
And if we're picking random piece of software oft-associated with a platform, and looking at their security history, try taking a deep look bind/sendmail.
+Pete (a commited OpenBSD user)
Score:-1, Funny
I don't have the latest figures, but I'm pretty sure that MacOSX desktop figures far outweight those of any Linux distribution (right now anyway ;-)
MacOSX is a real OS. What's the virus situation here? I think it will be a good indication of what life will be like when Linux desktop becomes more common.
BTW: this is a question... not a statement, but my hunch is that MacOSX malware is rare (?)
Looks Like Lanother KDE Lin Lthe Lmaking
Well say that "X Window System" where first, then Microsoft added a single letter and it became "Windows" with an plural s. After that Lindows release yet another GUI system and changed again 1 letter... (W became L) and then Microsoft is all pissed off about it?! These word games are just aweful, it would be so much better if they could just write code instead! :)
But saying Linspire pegs all the blame for virus problems on Microsoft and basically says that Linux (well, Lindows anyway) is the cure." strikes me as wrongheaded. The problems with Microsoft/virus issue are all legacy issues. If you think about it, all Microsoft code is based on a pre-Internet OS. It really isn't geared to the Internet to day. It's kind of like why pre-'70s (US) cars may not need to meet modern pollution codes. This does not make it right. But Microsoft itself is too monolithic to respond properly.
Also the users that are having the problems are all the "unwashed masses" that don't know to patch their systems properly and to pratice safe web surfing. They need to be educated.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I enjoy reading the weekly Michael's Minute, always a good read, except of course for the obligatory Lindows advertisements.
With regards to the fight over the Lindows name, I like to see Lindows standing up for principles and also for taking on Microsoft.
I applaud Lindows efforts to create a user friendly Linux release, I wish that it was a free distribution that I could just make copies of and give out to people, with revenue coming from optional support, click n run subscriptions.
I wonder if they will change the name back, I'm just starting to like Linspire better than Lindows.
Although I think that Linux is more secure, I think the writer of the parent article is (almost) right.
How many Worms/Viruses/Spams we "see", is less related to the number of security hole that exist in a certain system, it is more related to the number of "attackers" and the number of targets!
Not every securityhole is exploited, typically a high number of securityholes means nothing more, than only a tiny fraction of them are exploited.
If the number of systems prone to an attack is the same and the number of attackers is the same, then the fraction of exploited securityholes just increases
Really, this hoary old chestnut has been done-to-death. No. I don' think for one second that if Linux yada yada yada. For numerous reasons outlined already in this thread. Because Linux has a competent security model. Because Windows is homogenous - many/most users use identical apps (think Outlook Express, IE), on Linux there's too much choice for a worm, etc, to successfully propogate using one target. Because Linux doesn't default to running as root, and provides an easy mechanism for dropping-into root when you need to (disclaimer: maybe Windows has this - I've never found it, and I've been running Windows a lot longer than I've been running Linux).
Please, people, rather than using arguments like "I'll bet...", try just googling for facts. Or give up trolling.
This is where the serious fun begins.
A team of programmers in a commercial company distributes the work in the most cost-effective way, so that each person in the team specializes in a section of the code. There is little cross-checking if any. In open source, OTOH, there are people with different backgrounds verifying the code, independently.
That's the same reason why crackers find weak spots in software, they verify details that the programmers who created the software never thought about checking. In open source there is a balance of forces that's strongly biased to "good", instead of "evil", because the "black hats" are more often immature teens while the "white hats" are university professors. In commercial software, the balance of forces tends more to the "evil" side, because of the larger number of people in the black hats.
Most slashdotters direct much wrath towards the makers of spyware, adware, and malware in general, because they are a pain in the ass that inconvenience users.
However when someone writes a virus that inconveniences users, almost everyone here blames Microsoft and not the writer of the virus.
Seeing how there is almost no difference between the two, why are spyware publishers lambasted but virus writers given a free pass, and in many cases, lauded as champions against the evil Microsoft Empire?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
One of the major strengths of Linux is the lack of a monoculture. Most distributions come with 3 or 4 web browsers, e-mail programs, and media players etc.
..." It's why ISPs can support users cost-effectively. The lack of consistency in Linux, the fact that each major distro installs three, four, or more browsers rather than one, and the lack of recognition of this as a problem is why, despite being free (as in beer), it still has no significant penetration onto end-user desktops.
Spoken like a true, myopic computer geek. It's the "monoculture" of Windows that makes it usable by the average person. It's what makes it possible to publish books with screen shots. It's what allows the tech-savvy family member to tell his parents and siblings to "click on file and then click on
What do you mean, 'if'? Linux does have the attention of hackers worldwide. How else do you think it ever got written?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You think Lindows' site is bad? Browse a couple pages on THIS site. People are going to copy Apple no matter what. For the most part, all Apple can do is keep innovating and stay ahead of the game
The official name of the country is Nederland (The Netherlands) which is an appropriate name as a considerable area of the country actually lies below sea level, protected by dikes that keep the water out.
Holland is the name of two provinces in the West of the country, with port cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and the seat of the government The Hague. Historically, international trade was done mostly out of Holland, therefore this name is often used for the whole country throughout the world.
"Dutch" is the English word for the language of the Netherlands, it is related to the German word for "German" which is "Deutsch". The Dutch call themselves "Nederlanders".
Think of all those vulnerabilities that are defaults in Windows. Think also about the fact that most Linux distros do not encourage the user to run as "root". Not that Linux has no potential vulnerabilities, but they are much fewer than Windows..
The other difference is that Linux code, both kernel and application, is more likely to be modular and structured.
Both because this is the "unix way" but also because it's far easier for a diverse group of developers to work with such code.
The main problem with windows in-security is that there hasn't been a virus/worm attack bad enough to make people really look at alternatives. Lax building codes don't get addressed until a supermarket roof collapses and many people are injured/killed, the same is true for the computer world. If a worm was created that automatically nulled all sectors of a hard drive 4 hours after infection people would take notice and steps would be taken to either i) fix the problem ii) change the product that has the problem. I think MSFT is on pins and needles hoping that this never happens . It would be catastrophic if said worm ever did exist but that might be the only thing to get people to really take this seriously.
Cheers,
_GP_
p.s. Why didn't they call in "Lin+dows - Linux + XWindows" ??
Well Michael is a moron frankly. What WOULD prevent Linux from becoming as virus infested as Windows would be security out of the box. Locked down settings.
We have buffer overflows in programs just like them.
So, it's good to know that Lindows distributes itself with no user accounts, but you run as root.
"Lindows" is okay in Holland, check. ... so what *isn't* allowed in Holland again?