An Early Look at Freespire Linux

An anonymous reader writes "DesktopLinux.com takes an early look at Freespire Linux in a recent article. Linspire will be releasing their first version of Freespire, the first community Linux distribution to include many third-party proprietary codecs, drivers, and software. From the article: 'While I still have my doubts about the long-term wisdom of using proprietary software and drivers with Linux, I must say that if you feel you need to use such programs, Freespire makes it much easier than any other Linux distribution. And, when is all said and done, that's really what Freespire is all about -- making Linux as easy as possible for users.'"

Comments

It's about time...

[Geldon]

Linspire has had some pretty good ideas when it comes to making Linux easy for the Windows user. But since it has not been free, I have been reluctent to recommend it to friends. I would like to see how this turns out...

Re:It's about time...

[scharkalvin]

Seems Linspire is moving to the business model of giving away the software and charging
for the support.

I agree with the notion that 'non-free' software with an 'open' api and documented
formats is not a true evil and should be allowed as a choice on a free system. If you
use such an application you are not truly locked in to it as you can migrate your data.

The only problem I see with Freespire is the same one I see with other Debian clones.
They may use .deb packages but they don't all follow the same source trees and you can
end up with a broken system by mixing packages from different archives. That's a problem
because may want an application that is only available from a different archive tree than the
one your system was installed from and run into dependancy problems. (Installing
the desired package from source into /usr/local may be the safest path in this case, and
even this isn't foolproof.)

Re:It's about time...

[Almahtar]

I agree. This gives me a good chance to see it for myself: test the waters, so to speak, before passing it along to the less initiated. From the description, it sounds like a killer distro: I'd love to have proprietary codecs and the like installed out of the box. If this distro ends up being all it's cracked up to be, I might just subscribe to the click and run even though I know how to use apt-get already: just to support it.

Of course, I'll have to really give credance to the FSF's take on proprietary software first: I'd hate to be damaging progress for the sake of convenience, if that really is the end consequence.

Re:It's about time...

[Dukhat]

I was really amazed at the Linspire live cd for one thing in particular. It automatically recognized my Wifi card, and it was easy to configure it. Even on ubuntu, I have to google for the right windows driver to use with ndiswrapper, which is really annoying.

Re:It's about time...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the description, it sounds like a killer distro: I'd love to have proprietary codecs and the like installed out of the box.

If Freespire/Linspire is not to your liking, give Ubuntu along with EasyUbuntu a look. I'm not trying to be a zealot here (actually I run Slackware), but for people who just don't want to screw with things EasyUbuntu grabs the most oft-requested add-ons with very little fuss and muss.

Re:It's about time...

[ThePhilips]

Seems Linspire is moving to the business model of giving away the software and charging for the support.

From all what I can tell, most Windows users have fear of tech support. In all my years of helping people with Linux, I found it to be very very easily supportable. Hardest part is to convince user that there is nothing in Linux monstrous like e.g. Windows' registry, that even if user screwed something up - all the damage can be easily recovered.

Still even after that, most people are very reluctant to call non-free support. They just say that "computer broke". Though most of the time they wouldn't hesitate to bring the PC to my place - just like TV - for "repair".

I think that Freespire/Linspire/whatever has hard road ahead to overcome. Good luck. We definitely need more people like Michael Robertson. Not a personal fan, but I always admired people trying to achieve more.

Odd name

[Winckle]

For a linux distro that contains software which is not "free"

Re:Odd name

[vancondo]

Yeah, but I heard that this distro includes free beer, so count me in!

Re:Odd name

[QuantumFTL]

It is the perhaps unfortunate nature of the english language that two, entirely separate concepts are both given the same name - free. The target audience of this distribution does not care about source code or software politics. They want a tool that they can use to get work done, and they want it on the cheap. For them, the name Freespire is good, as the point of the distribution is that it does not cost money. Whether or not it is Stallman approved means less to them than if it is "kid tested and mother approved."

Re:Odd name

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comments should be modded as flamebait. I'm curious to know what makes them any different than other Distro's as far as Free is concerned. Is your comment based on the fact that they do allow users to use proprietary drivers and codecs in their distro? Free is about Freedom. Apparently unless you want to resrict the freedoms of others to use the drivers and codecs that they want to use. Besides, this usually releaves the user from searching/installing the codecs and drivers anyway. They realize that until alternatives are available, why not make it easier. They have contributed a lot to the community, and it sucks that they get such a bad wrap from the ignorant masses. ( ignorant adj. - Unaware or uninformed )

Re:Odd name

[kimvette]

Your comments should be modded as flamebait.

Why waste mod points on someone expressing their "information wants to be free" opinion? It's a waste of mod points, and one should mod great posts up rather than using mod points to knock down opinions they disagree with.

With that out of the way,

Is your comment based on the fact that they do allow users to use proprietary drivers and codecs in their distro? Free is about Freedom.

there is much to be said for pure F/OSS distributions. If you are in a corporate environment, you may want to go all F/OSS to avoid "license violation" issues. That way, as you deploy software to each workstation you KNOW for ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that you are not exceeding your "license" terms. I have Linux deployed on most of the machines at my office, and I must say, it makes keeping track of proprietary licenses an absolute breeze. The handful of Windows machines left are here to stay,

Now, as far as F/OSS drivers are concerned: they are pretty much a necessity, because as chipsets age proprietary vendors tend to phase support out of their binary drivers (often when they're still selling older products!). Do you think that Nvidia will still actively maintain drivers for the fx5200 chipset, or the old Riva chipsets? I'd be very surprised if they do. Oh sure, the kernel module wrapper might still compile, and it might still work, but will one be able to use the drivers with X.org 8.0 or XGL 2.0 whatever is out by then? Look at ATI as the perfect example of how NOT to work with open source. They offer binary drivers, but for many newer chipsets the proprietary drivers do not support accelerated 3D, and for the older chipsets that they do support (Radeon 8500, 9500) the F/OSS drivers actually outperform the proprietary crap drivers. NVidia has produced great drivers that Just Work(tm) and ATI consistently ships crappy drivers (I take it Bill & Ted are responsible for them). I've read complaints that neither driver will work with X.org 7.1 (I can't verify, I'm just upgrading to 6.9 and 7.0 now myself). Sure, that problem may be addressed in time, but will ATI drop Radeon support altogether? Will NVidia finally say that if you have the old Riva chipsets, have fun with the NV driver (which is s-l-o-w) and still not release specifications on the registers?

Hardware vendors have a responsibility to their customers to provide specifications for interoperability. There is NO excuse for not providing info saying "to do foo, put value (n) at register c7ee." This USED to be the norm back in the 1980s, Even printer companies now hide their printer controls, making print filter development a near-impossibility in many cases. Back in the 1980s through early 1990s you either received FULL specs on all printer control codes, or you could call the company and receive the spec. This is untrue any more - they won't provide it to you, citing "intellectual property" issues. If you buy a Kyocera business-class laser printer today, will print drivers for Linux still be available in 7 or 10 years? Or, will Kyocera tell you to "buy a new printer," oh, and by the way, that asterisk/hylafax server you have running on the 2.6.16 kernel won't run our new drivers because we only support the 3.2.4 and higher kernel. So sad, too bad." (ignoring the fact that Linux will always be able to print to postscript for the sake of argument)

More Bubbly

[neonprimetime]

Is it just me, or do Linux Desktops seem to be following the Windows trend? They seem to be getting more bubbly. Take me back to the days of BlackBox

Re:More Bubbly

[BecomingLumberg]

I agree Linux is going that way, but familiarity and 'good' looks are the only way to start converting the non-geeks. And there are plenty of nuts and bolts distros.

Eye candy is very appealing to the mainstream user, and will help A LOT to increase Linux's usage and familiarity.

Re:More Bubbly

[FudRucker]

slackware :)

Re:More Bubbly

[Divide By Zero]

It's easier for an expert to kill X than it is for a n00b to start it. It's not like XP where the CLI is an afterthought. It's there, just like back in the olden days of Windows, running under the GUI.

If you don't like it, don't use it. For me, I'm looking for a linux system that works BEFORE I start working on it. Give me a working system, then let me customize it. I don't have the chops to build a linux box from the ground up, and while that puts me in the minority here, I'm very firmly in the majority over the general population on this one.

I'm hoping this gives the linux movement a bit more momentum, even if it does do so at the expense of tarnishing the OSS camps' dreams just a bit.

Re:More Bubbly

[WilliamSChips]

Just use Gentoo with pekwm the way I do.

Re:More Bubbly

[B11]

I don't know about you, but it's nice to have a system that isn't ugly. Of course, the first thing I did when I installed ubuntu was change the theme and get rid of the brown. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? Of course now, it's sort of their claim to fame, and they can't change it now, but I wonder how many "regular" users are put off by unbuntu altogether, right off the bat?

Re:More Bubbly

[BecomingLumberg]

I'm actually partial to the color scheme in Ubuntu (my choice of distro). I have an asian themed room and the subdued tones mesh very well with the colors of the room. (Using the 'Dawn of Ubuntu' wallpaper, the tree with the faded sky behind it)

Re:More Bubbly

[dolson]

Actually, they have said that each cycle will possibly have a different color theme, so don't be surprised if they change from Brown/Orange to Pink/Neon Green for Edgy.

Re:More Bubbly

[kfg]

Take me back to the days of BlackBox

Go for it:

http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/

http://www.bb4win.org/news.php

KFG

Re:More Bubbly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easier for an expert to kill X than it is for a n00b to start it.

This is nonsense. Mainstream Linux distros have been booting straight into X for about six or seven years.

Re:More Bubbly

[b0s0z0ku]

I don't know about you, but it's nice to have a system that isn't ugly.

Sadly, I'm not a fan of the 'bubbly' look of XP (or Linspire). Give me a functional look like fvwm or Gnome any day. Functionality and simplicity have their own aesthetic!

-b.

Re:More Bubbly

[Almahtar]

It's amazing how many of my classmates I've converted to Ubuntu because they saw how sexy it was with proper theming and the use of a few desklets. Yes, even to senior level computer science students, eye candy sells.

...Of course, once they actually tried it out and used the slick features like apt-get the first time, they were head over heels.

Re:More Bubbly

[b0s0z0ku]

For me, I'm looking for a linux system that works BEFORE I start working on it.

Not exactly Linux, but my OpenBSD install worked quite nicely out of the box. X even booted in 640x480/256 mode the first time I typed "startx" (sort of equivalent to the "win" command back in the day?). "xorgconfig" was required to set X up to play nice with my video card at 1024x768, but that wasn't a big deal - the config took a minute and was completely straightforward.

Installing Debian was slightly more fun because of wierd shift-key issues on my Dell desktop and the need to get ACPI working on my Thinkpad.

-b.

Re:More Bubbly

[B11]

Bubble (or XP's "Fisher-Price" inspired look) I guess works for some. I was actually referring the overall look of an OS (and how east it is to change it). I love how easy it is in gnome to change the theme. I had to hack windows to be able to do the same (at least beyond the simple choices built into xp).

Re:More Bubbly

[lenehey]

Not me. I find the brown very soothing. Nothing like a neutral color to put one's mind at ease and make things comfy.

Re:More Bubbly

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me....... I like brown. It makes me so happy I could shit.

Re:More Bubbly

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but it's nice to have a system that isn't ugly.

Look kid, when I was your age all we had fvwm and we liked it. Sheesh!

Just kidding. Nothing is more depressing than looking at a desktop that looks like ass... except for maybe another Republican win in '08.

Re:More Bubbly

[dbcad7]

There are lots of gnome themes that people have contributed. It is a bit more complicated than windows though, when you like a theme, but want to tweak the colors.

For example... I liked the theme GreenHeart controls with Slate window border, but to truely make it like I wanted.. I had to open both the tz.gz files and load almost every image into gimp and adjust colors.. and then decipher the gtkrc file and change some hex numbers to adjust other colors as well... save everything .. Then had to re-zip and install it .. it was a good part of a lazy Saturday to accomplish .. I am very happy with the results though ! .. and for good measure I hacked up an xmms skin to match it. :)

But all in all, there are so many combo's of controls and borders that pertty much anyone can find something to their liking.

Re:More Bubbly

[Risen888]

How does this qualify for a +5 Insightful? All you said there was "I don't like the color brown."

Re:More Bubbly

[Anonymous Coward]

The brown is to me a welcome change from the ever-so-cool-and-sleek blue-ish desktop about any other distro sports (and OSX and windows as well). I like the SuSE green, too, but with ubuntu, you just feel relaxed and at home. The color does not try to show off and intimidate, and the message works. My sisters partner, who never touched a linux in his life, chose ubuntu out of several distros I showed him because of exactly this psychological reason.

BTW I find Gnome and especially the buttons visually terribly bloated and oversized - on a small notebook screen with a 1024x768 resolution I can hardly read my mail. There I think the UI gets really in my way, even if I have learnt to like it otherwise (used mostly KDE before)

Kickstart

[also-rr]

Proprietary software, as long as it doesn't make the system less free, is not necessarily bad.

For example a proprietary document system that uses open formats and has open APIs does very little to harm the user and potentially fills a niche that cannot be served by free software very well (eg handles certain legal compliance issues, which requires expensive insurance and research).

As long as you *could* write your own software to replace bits of the system, or interoperate with the system, then you dont necessarily have to for the benefit to be very real indeed.

A lot (although not all) of the stuff that comes with Linspire falls into this category.

Re:Kickstart

[Almahtar]

Much of the concern over the use of proprietary material is that it'll eventually be relied-upon with no alternative. If that happens and then the owner of the proprietary software has a change of heart or goes belly up, there are problems. For example: if everyone uses ATI's fglrx drivers, there's no need for the open source ones. If ATI goes out of business, everyone's using this huge black box to power their ATI cards. Bug fixes would have to be in the form of unofficial binary hacks, and new feature implementation is next to impossible. By not using any non-free (as in speech) components, such a calamity can be avoided.

Actually..

[AltGrendel]

And, when is all said and done, that's really what Freespire is all about -- making Linux as easy as possible for users.'"

Usually, when all is said and done, more is said than done.

non-GPL Kernel modules

[Chutzpah]

From what I can tell, freespire advertises that they ship the nVidia and ATI drivers? If they are shipping precompiled copies of the source that is distributed, then they are violating the GPL, and it is likely that the kernel developers will have a talk with them.

It is illegal to distribute non-GPL binary kernel modules (ask any kernel developer), and Freespire should respect the GPL since they are a Linux company.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[ardor]

It is illegal to distribute non-GPL binary kernel modules (ask any kernel developer), and Freespire should respect the GPL since they are a Linux company.

Well, the actual nVidia/ATI kernel module IS GPLed. It acts as layer between the kernel and the binary blob. This layer has an open API, which is used by the blob. Thus, the blob uses the kernel, it does not extend it. The extension comes from the GPLed layer.

The real issue is that nVidia & ATI use GPL code from other parts of the kernel in their drivers. This is the only issue, because the way I described above makes binary blobs perfectly legal.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[Chutzpah]

The layer is not GPL'ed, its not even open source. Take a look at the copyright notice at the top of the source files that nVidia distributes:

/* _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_BEGIN_
  *
  * Copyright 1999-2001 by NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved. All
  * information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to NVIDIA
  * Corporation. Any use, reproduction, or disclosure without the written
  * permission of NVIDIA Corporation is prohibited.
  *
  * _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_END_
  */

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[ardor]

Sorry, my mistake. Obviously I misunderstood something in the nVidia sources.
But still, the layer idea allows binary drivers without violating the GPL.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[PitaBred]

Do you really think that it'd be that hard for them to get NVidia and ATI to 'bless' a version of their drivers to ship with the distro? I doubt it.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[Chutzpah]

It's more the fact that shipping a precompiled kernel module is a GPL violation that I am worried about.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[ardor]

It is not, as long as the source code is available.
Otherwise, all non-source based distros would be illegal, including Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Fedora,....

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[gnud]

That's not the point. As I understand it, the kernel module has source aviable, but the license is _not_ gpl-compatible. Nvidia ditributes it under it's own license, but it's still linked to the kernel. This is legal as long as the linking is performed by the end user. When distributed however, this looks as an GPL violation to me, although IANAL.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[Chutzpah]

Anything that is derived from GPL code must be redistributed under the GPL, that is how the license works. ATI and nVidia are distributing only the source, which is not linked to the kernel so it doesn't technically have any kernel code in it. As soon as you link the module to the kernel, it contains part of the kernel code, so if it is distributed, it must be distributed under the GPL.

Ubuntu, Debian, SuSE and Fedora distribute precompiled binaries, but make the source for the binaries available, that is how you stay compliant with the GPL. You should read it sometime, its actually quite readable the way licenses go. At least have a look at the GPL FAQ it explains this in more detail.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the parent message possibly be modded troll? His message is legit and he is not trolling. Of course what do I know, I'm just an anonymous coward.

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[ardor]

Did *you* read my posting? I said exactly the same. The opensourced kernel module is *linked* to the kernel, and the binary driver then *uses* the module's open API, thereby just *using* the module. Using an open API of a GPLed system is no GPL violation, otherwise Linux could not be used at all (BIOS is closed-source for example).

Re:non-GPL Kernel modules

[Chutzpah]

The module is not open source, and not GPL, so distributing a precompiled copy of the module (which is linked to the kernel source) is illegal. It is only legal to distribute the source and make the user compile it themselves.

The legality of that has nothing to do with nVidia, it's the kernel developers who own the copyright that is being violated by someone distributing closed source modules (The nVidia module is a closed source module, read the license).

not exactly packaged with the distro...

[tlacuache]

... but EasyUbuntu accomplishes the same thing (at least as far as the codecs and drivers go, I didn't RTFA) for Ubuntu and is as easy as the name suggests.

Yep. Major improvement...

[Doches]

Far superior, of course, to Ubuntu + Automatix.

GPL violation?

[bughouse26]

Including proprietary drivers in a distribution violates the GPL because your are distributing a derivative GPL work (the linux kernel) without also making the source code available.

How are they working around this?

Re:GPL violation?

[humajime]

The work around is that there is no GPL violation. The Linux Kernel has an open API. If you conform to the API and have written all the code yourself, your code isn't subject to the GPL. The Kernel source is GPL. Any module can be whatever the author deems it.

Re:GPL violation?

[hacker]

Except that binary kernel modules are illegal, and will not be allowed in, period.

Seen the various talks at OLS a couple of weeks ago? Seen the stance by Novell as a result of it?

Re:GPL violation?

[ardor]

Using the GPL layer approach, they are not.
But apparently, I was mistaken about the open-source nVidia kernel modules that act as the layer. They are not GPLed. If they are re-released under the GPL, then the nvidia binary drivers are perfectly legal.

Re:GPL violation?

[bughouse26]

Driver module authors are of course free to license their code as they see fit. While binary driver module authors and others are free to distribute their driver _standalone_ without providing source (even this is disputed by the FSF), they are not free to distribute a kernel compiled with their driver linked in. Such a work is derivative and is therefore subject to the GPL. Ask Cisco (Linksys) how they fared trying to keep their binary modules closed when they distributed the WRT54G wireless router. See also http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/14/ 2059242

Re:GPL violation?

[G Morgan]

They could of course spend 5 seconds at install compiling the shim and then all is good. I'm suprised more distros don't do this given the rise of live cd installers. Prehaps thats why Ubuntu is moving to a live cd, next release will detect then compile the correct module for you. You haven't distributed a pre-compiled binary then.

Re:GPL violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a GPL violation as the GPL goes against capitalism. I have been telling the slashbots for a long time now and have always been modded down as troll. I guess troll/flamebait means telling the truth against the GPL yet insightful/interesting/informative means posting "linux rulez, winblowz drulez".

Re:GPL violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

And see how Linux Torvalds blasts those radical views:

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarch ives.jhtml?articleId=191600924

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004367120

RJ

Re:GPL violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the proprietary drivers and codecs are distributed on the same CD doesn't mean it violates the GPL. There are many cleaver ways to distribute the binaries separately (all they do is reside in an individual file on the CD), and then the user, during the install process, marries them together. So, it wasn't distributed in violation of the GPL.

RJ

Hasn't this been tried

[pscottdv]

Didn't a little company called "Caldera" try this marketing strategy once? Hopefully when freespire changes its name again, it won't be changing it to "SCO".

Re:Hasn't this been tried

[mpapet]

Yes,

But this is web 2.0 stuff we're talking about here!

Caldera was early and the Linux desktop has come a long way since.

I'll hazzard a guess and say Linspire is still a little early to the game, but I think Longwait's convoluted marketing plan with different packages unlocking different functions only benefits Linspire.

If they continue to concentrate on OEM contracts, I think they'll provide a great deal of exposure to the Linux desktop. It will be a clearly lower priced and function as well. Let's not forget the dramatically better security model that's pretty transparent to the desktop user.

Hopefully, they aren't burning through cash like a web 2.0 startup so they'll be around for a while.

Re:Hasn't this been tried

[pscottdv]

Let's not forget the dramatically better security model that's pretty transparent to the desktop user.

Maybe freespire has changed this, but I seem to remember that when Walmart was selling "Lindows" preinstalled on $200 PCs, it booted into root by default with no password. Lindows was also bundling non-free software at the time. Their justification for both was exactly the same as it is today, "But it's easier!"

You may be right about the market having changed since Caldera. Certainly more people know about Linux today, so the potential market might be bigger. But, I've always thought that Caldera's problem with their philosophy was that they did not understand that Linux geeks *care* about freedom. Today, that might no longer be true in the corporate data center, but freespire is going to have to get its momentum from home users. My experience is that linux-in-the-home is found in two places, people who love Linux because they care about freedom, and their friends and relatives.

Re:Hasn't this been tried

[G Morgan]

As I understand it they are nowhere near profitability.

Re:Hasn't this been tried

[GuNgA-DiN]

Yes. This has changed in Freespire. The user no longer runs as root by default.

You can check out the FAQ here:
http://wiki.freespire.org/index.php/FAQ_Category:_ About_Freespire_and_The_Freespire_Project

Not the way to go

[gigne]

Although Linspire may have a reasonable goal... to run windows programs on a windows interface, I don't think this is the way to go.
The idea of getting a Windows user to operate a horribly bastardised version of GNU/Linux is a bad idea. There will be a never ending stream of problems relating to windows being a hacked together piece of crap, with never ending interop problems. Windows users like system integration, from my experience with freespire, this is lacking.
Bad Emulation of a bad operating system is not the way to go.
We need to make a good Linux distribution, without the crazy package dependancies, and bi-daily system updates. only when someone creates a user experience that is not a horrible mix between the worst elements of GNU/Linux and Windows, will we ever progress in creating a real operating system.
the whole *NIX thing is not good for the newbie, and in it's current state of affairs, never will be. Despite Linsire giving you nice config tools, it's still necessary to manually edit config files. When we come up with a solution for the whole config file problem (so many in so many places) will we ever move forward.
As a side note, a much better approach would to to virtualise a custom windows. Possibly just the kernel and underlying win32 API, and then X host it out. It does mean that the user would need a valid windows license, but they come with all computers now. This would at least give you a real windows environment. Wine just doesn't cut the mustard.

Re:Not the way to go

[exKingZog]

Config files... we could build a big, centralised database of them, maybe split into user and computer, with the user having rights over their own section but not the computer... and we could call it... THE REGISTRY.

Re:Not the way to go

[ratboy666]

"It does mean that the user would need a valid windows license, but they come with all computers now."

That license does NOT grant the right to run Windows on any other system.

But, on a different note. There are different points of view. The first is that the "Operating System" is simply a resource manager. Its goal is to maximize utilization of your computer. From this point of view, Linux is already superior to Windows.

Another point of view is that the "Operating System" is central to your (enjoyable) use of the computer. That it presents and correlates information, and integrates applications. From this point of view Windows is superior to Linux.

What is a "newbie"? If it is someone who interacts "lightly" with a computer, and only does email and web surfing, Linux is probably a better choice. If it is someone who uses programs in a "non-integrated" way, Linux is a better choice.

Only if that "newbie" uses multiple programs and expects them to integrate in the Windows way, Windows would be the better choice. But that person would no longer be a "newbie". As to "config file problem" -- I have 22 years of computer experience, and I don't know my way around the "Windows Registry". It makes no sense to me. And, to boot, I have been unable to install Windows XP on some pretty plain hardware. I would say that Linux is easier to install and manage. I guess I'm not that mythical "newbie".

You are dead on in your observation that simply emulating Windows isn't the right direction. Not because Windows is a "bad" experience. Simply because the super-tight integration costs a lot. In security. In trying to customize. In maintainance.

"Crazy package dependencies". Interesting, the same finger can be pointed at Microsoft. For instance, I purchased a program "DVD Ripper". It claimed on the box to run on Windows 98 up to Windows XP. I installed it -- it is missing "something.dll" (not sure of the exact thing). Now, that would be a crazy package dependency. Especially as I really don't have time (or the desire) to dig though OTHER peoples computers to find what is missing. Or "warez" sites. Available in binary only, naturally. I should be so stupid as to actually download a random binary, from a site I don't trust...

"bi-daily system updates". Well then, don't do it! Or, choose a "Linux" that is stable.

As always, YMMV
Ratboy

Re:Not the way to go

[gigne]

You make some good counterpoints.

I guess that by "newbie" I mean me. I have 10 years Linux experience, and have just recently started to learn windows. I also find it illogical, and completely irrational. My Package dependancy issues are something I didn't explain properly. My gripe is not that packages have dependancies, it's that they break too easily, and it's not a trivial matter to build a package for you preferred distro. Also the sheer number of dependant packages with the most simple application is min boggling. Adding one package in your preferred package manager may install another 140 packages.

Before I attract more flaming, I am not against Linux, at all. I think it's a much better system generally, and I am a supporter and contributer of Open Source. I just think there are lots of things in Linux that are impossible for the average windows user to instantly comprehend. It's so fundamentally different in how it works, it takes a long time to get used to. My flatmate still has issues doing anything but the most basic things in Linux, despite 5 years of usage. Some people "get it" because they want to, and those that don't "get it", generally don't want to.
Your argument that Linux is superior in most respects, I am inclined to agree. There are still many things that annoy me on a daily basis, and I wish someone would fix, or it could be done better (before you ask... I fix as much as I have time for). Config files is just one of my gripes. I am not saying that a central "registry" is a good option, because it's clearly not. What would be a better option is for the config files to be kept in the same place (i.e unchanged), but an auto symlink is generated with a whole load of meta data showing what application it is, and what version. A central SVN or SQL database could track the changes. Nothing has to change for something as simple as this to work. It sits above the current default config. I believe there are projects working along these lines, only time will tell if that works.

Re:Not the way to go

[Slithe]

I guess that by "newbie" I mean me. I have 10 years Linux experience, and have just recently started to learn windows. I also find it illogical, and completely irrational.

Don't we all? :)

Re:Not the way to go

[RLiegh]

I guess that by "newbie" I mean me. I have 10 years Linux experience, and have just recently started to learn windows. I also find it illogical, and completely irrational.

Don't we all? :)

No. No 'we' don't.

Windows has been around in its' current incarnation for 11 years now. During the course of that 11 years it has remained decently consistent in its' interface and has provided a reliable mechanism to do tasks (keyboard shortcuts, cut and paste, etc).

There are places where the UI violates good UI design (too many nested menus, for instance), but for those minor problems, Linux is no better.

Half of the reason, my friends, that KDE and GNOME are busy playing catch-up with Windows is that they do not have a better way of doing things either.

The ease of use of Linux is still very variable from distribution to distribution. In gui terms Linux is far more illogical than Windows simply because you never know what you're gonna get.

Only someone wrapped up in their hatred of Microsoft could dismiss windows' strenths out of hand...this is even more obvious when considering the fact that linux has the same exact flaws and many more to boot!

Re:Not the way to go

[Ant P.]

I call it GConf.

Re:Not the way to go

[GuNgA-DiN]

Linspire's goal is NOT "to run windows programs on a windows interface".

They abandoned WINE back in 2002.

Their goal is to introduce Linux to the mainstream market in an easy and friendly way. Linspire / Freespire will NOT run any Windows software without installing an emulator of some sort.

Re:Not the way to go

[ratboy666]

"Windows has been around in its' current incarnation for 11 years now"

So, you are comparing Windows 95 to Windows XP? Let's do that.

"During the course of that 11 years it has remained decently consistent in its' interface and has provided a reliable mechanism to do tasks (keyboard shortcuts, cut and paste, etc)."

Please compare Windows 95 and Windows XP. I guess you could use "decently consistent" for a sufficiently low value of consistent.

FYI, there ARE no alternate distributions of Windows. So comparing the variability of Linux GUI to Windows is a complete canard. Let's take a popular distribution of Linux (singular) and compare that to Windows. Fedora Core 5 to Windows XP. And, yes, I know that Fedora Core gets updated more frequently. On the other hand, Microsoft has thousands of developers focussed on Windows.

Fedora Core 5 uses a two level selection for programs (category/program, vs. XPs default 4 level). Menu items do not simply disappear of their own accord. When updating a Redhat 9 (RHEL) system or user, menus and GUI retain the "look and feel" that user is acustomed to. Desktop behaviour is programmable "out of the box" -- supporting old time users (like me) who prefer focus follows cursor, etc. Application location transparency supported, and not just as a high-end feature. Integration into heterogenous networks is supported, including yp and hesiod. This is integrated into the login system. Automounter and pam for user location transparency. Underlying graphics engine supported across multiple vendors, as is the overlaid GUI (Redhat, SUN, IBM, etc.). It is possible to switch from Intel/Fedora Core 5 to a SUN workstation with ease.

Fedora Core 5 is program oriented -- Windows XP tries to be task oriented. Which is better? For a PDA, I prefer task, but for general computing I prefer program. Which is why I turn on the "classic" interface in XP (and thank the goddess that the option is there).

Why doesn't Windows XP support X, NIS, Hesiod, NFS? I find this very annoying. I have to enable samba because XP just doesn't have "it". (the integration factor). And, why does XP natter INCESSANTLY (sp?) about things like "you don't have an anti-virus program"? It wasn't at ALL obvious how to turn that off. (I did it, but I have no idea how -- and how would I get that warning back?)

Enough Windows bashing; time for some props. Office works like a dream. Third party programs -- its a mixed bag (an example -- the HP LaserJet 3015 drivers. To get these to "scan to computer" using the front panel, you need a special driver. Loading that driver results in a "Handle not valid" dialog box, interesting that it comes up on both Windows 98se and Windows XP (and on two separate computers). Both from the driver set supplied on the CD, and from the downloaded drivers from HP. Since XP doesn't complain, I presume that these are "signed" drivers and have gone through Microsoft certification. On 98SE, they crash the machine in 3 days. On XP they don't crash, but that silly dialog prevents XP from booting all the way though. Most strange -- even with this flaw, the 3015 works just fine.). The holy programs: XP, IE, .NET, OFFICE, OUTLOOK, Media Player are a joy to use together. They go together with incredible fit and finish. Add in the Microsoft dev IDE -- you never have to leave. It is truly amazing what a single vendor can do (not necessarily for function, but for integration.)

As always, YMMV (and don't presume I am a "Windows Hater" -- I own Microsoft shares. But, I was a Staff Engineer at SUN for years, which explains my bias for "usability").

Ratboy

The RedHat Business Model

[tabdelgawad]

When Redhat dropped their supported free desktop version and split their offerings into the 'community' Fedora Core and the 'professional' RHEL, everybody beat up on them then, and continues to do so (see the Ubuntu-as-Redhat-Killer article from earlier today). Yet it seems like many Linux distros with commercial aspirations are doing the same (Suse, and now Linspire).

Maybe Redhat was onto something?

Re:The RedHat Business Model

[molarmass192]

With respect to SuSE, you got that wrong. OpenSUSE (the free SuSE), is ONLY free software. Nothing that doesn't have source is included in there. Non-open SuSE (the pay for DVD one) contains all the binary only bits that make GPL folks cringe.

Re:The RedHat Business Model

[thedrunkensailor]

thank the lord not all have "commercial aspirations"

slackware....stable....good

My problem with Linspire

[WilliamSChips]

is that it uses root accounts by default. That's pretty much asking for trouble.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[One Louder]

Freespire doesn't handle accounts the same as Linspire.

It's more like Ubuntu in that regard - a user account with sudo privileges with the account's password.

It's quite easy to create user accounts in Linspire, and it's even recommmended during the installation.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[jsight]

linspire hasn't done that for years.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[gui_tarzan2000]

"is that it uses root accounts by default. That's pretty much asking for trouble."

How long is this rumor going to live? That hasn't been the case for quite a while now. And version 5 is extremely nice! Much faster and much more stable than ever. It's actually at a point where I'd use it daily at work if I could.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[Fordiman]

As a target, a sudoable account == an administrator account.

Honestly. What makes people think that if Desktop Linux starts attracting virus writers, they won't try to sudo their Bad Things?

Your user should not be a sudoer. Your account should have to explicitly su root and enter a password. If you're talking security, anything else is just masturbation.

Meanwhile, I run as root. I don't give a shit about security; I have a mostly disposable system, viruses aren't targeting linux nearly enough for me to care, and my distro lets me do it without issue - as a result, it's path of least resistance for me.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[paving-slab]

Your user should not be a sudoer. Your account should have to explicitly su root and enter a password.

I fail to see the distinction between using sudo with a password or su with a password. Except that using sudo you only get access to one specified application, which I would consider more secure.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[tuomasr]

Using sudo, you have to give your own password. Using su, you need to give the superuser password which in most cases is different and therefore gaining access to a normal account wouldn't make a difference as they couldn't breach root (at least not immediately).

And you can actually run the command sudo su if you are in the sudoers list. Guess what this does?

Re:My problem with Linspire

[paving-slab]

...Using sudo, you have to give your own password...

This is simply not true, with sudo you have the choice to enter you own pasword, the password of the user whose account you wish to use or no pasword at all. This can be set in the sudoers file on a per application and per user basis.

...And you can actually run the command sudo su if you are in the sudoers list. Guess what this does?...

And guess what? This too can be disabled in the sudoers file.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[CarpetShark]

As long as it deserves to, probably ;)

But, I'm glad to hear that I (as another poster who mentioned this) was wrong, and it's been fixed :)

Re:My problem with Linspire

[tuomasr]

I know. What I stated are the default settings of sudo / su. Hopefully these easy-to-use distributions have the default settings changed or the user is smart enough to change them.

Re:My problem with Linspire

[paving-slab]

Oh, OK.

So when you said:-

...Your user should not be a sudoer. Your account should have to explicitly su root and enter a password. If you're talking security, anything else is just masturbation...

You really meant

...Hopefully these easy-to-use distributions have the default settings [of sudo] changed or the user is smart enough to change them...

Can't argue with that.

No GPL Violations

[humajime]

People don't seem to understand what the GPL covers in term of "derivative" work. If you fulfill an API, that is not covered under the GPL. If you take parts of the linux kernel, modify them and then repackage them, that does constitute derivative work. It just happens that most kernal modules distrubuted with Linux distros are GPLed, but they don't have to be. The module can be 100% new code, and the author can then release it under whatever Liscence they want.

Re:No GPL Violations

[dhasenan]

This is a large problem. The GPL says little about what does or does not constitute a derivative work.

There's a good reason for that: the GPL is supposed to be portable. However, including a clause that says "The following do not constitute derivative works: [...] Licenses that differ only in this clause are considered to be fully compatible" might be a viable option.

We'll see.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've tried over a dozen Linux distros and all of them have had major, glaring problems from a user standpoint. The worst is support for MP3 files. SuSE pretends there isn't any such thing; Ubuntu gives you a link to a cryptic page which says "please go away". USB thumbdrives can be plugged in but not unplugged on SuSE. Music CDs won't play, and no apparent reason is given. On and on. Ubuntu's the closest, but it's still not anything I could give to anyone who's not a masochistic geek. Get over it and fix the stupid problems!

Re:We'll see.

[ardor]

Indeed, automounting still has issues. For example, you unmount it using the KDE menu, but after unplugging, its still present. Or, it simply does not automount etc.
IMO automounting is not well integrated, even after Project Utopia. The Unix design is simply not made for automounting and removable media, and it shows. Only after the creation of pmount *useful* media mounting is possible (i.e. you dont have to be root).

Another thing I am not fond of is samba share mounting. It is really not trivial to mount a share being an user, and with the rights set so that ordinary users can access it. It takes tons of samba tutorials to actually get this to work. KDE and Gnome support mounting using their own VFS', which is bad for non-KDE/GNOME apps. Fix this!

Re:We'll see.

[matgorb]

Hum, my SuSE came with mp3 support out of the box, thanks to a clever integration with real helix software used as a back end. What the hell is it with Ubuntu anyway, you might be able to do the same with automatix or easy ubuntu or what not, but freespire makes it LEGAL (at least in the US, in the civilised word software patent don't yet apply)!

Re:We'll see.

[molarmass192]

Hmmm ... ever try to play a DVD on a vanilla Windows install? Yeah, SuSE doesn't let you play MP3s or other goodies of that ilk out of the box. You need to update against a few choice repositories before you can use that goodness. That said, it's VERY easy to create a super-install DVD from Yast with all those "omitted" packages. As for the CD and USB thumbdrive issue, you need to run SuSEPlugger, it handles all that mount / unmount stuff for you. I don't use it personally, I like to mount shit when I need it rather than have it automounted, but for non-techs, it works just as well as Winders auto-detection mech.

Re:We'll see.

[kfg]

Get over it and fix the stupid problems!

The problem is propriatary code/codecs. This is not a problem that can be fixed by including code, since a legal monopoly on such code is the very problem.

And the very problem, for good or ill, that Lin/Free/spire is trying to deal with; and, I might point out, that the GPL is trying to deal with at the root.

KFG

Re:We'll see.

[b0s0z0ku]

don't use it personally, I like to mount shit when I need it rather than have it automounted, but for non-techs, it works just as well as Winders auto-detection mech. Same with Debian/Gnome. Plug in an external HDD? It shows up on the desktop about a second later, without all the hemming and hawing that takes 'doze 10 sec to detect a drive. And don't even get me started on "do you want to Autoplay?" (I know it can be disabled, but if you plug a USB key into an unfamiliar system and forget...bleh).

-b.

Re:We'll see.

[delire]

What the hell is it with Ubuntu anyway, you might be able to do the same with automatix or easy ubuntu or what not, but freespire makes it LEGAL (at least in the US, in the civilised word software patent don't yet apply)! Only a small proportion of all humans on Earth live in America. For this reason - and the support of a massive Ubuntu userbase - Ubuntu with Automatix/Easy Ubuntu is both a sane and legal option for most.

Re:We'll see.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try smb4k for samba mounting. It's even simpler than in windows.

Re:We'll see.

[MichaelSmith]

Only after the creation of pmount *useful* media mounting is possible

I discovered recently that if you do not have a real local user (ie, authentication was via NIS, and you only access NFS disks) then pmount will not work because it can't work out which user you are. Just posting in case somebody else has a similar problem.

low-quality drivers

[bcrowell]

What sometimes gets left out of this kind of discussion is that closed-source drivers are often of very low quality. Recently, I've been scanning in an old 400-page book on an HP scanner, using HP's closed-source MacOS 9 driver and scanning software. The MacOS X driver wasn't released until a couple of years after we bought the scanner, although they claimed it would be coming "real soon now." When the MacOS X driver finally was released, I found that it crashed so often as to make it useless. So here I am, in the year 2006, booting into MacOS 9 whenever I want to use the scanner. IIRC a driver is available for SANE, but I think I had dependency problems getting it to instal on my Linux box.

I scanned the first 100 pages or so, transferred them to the Linux box, and made sure I could read them. No problem. I finished scanning the book, transferred the rest of the pages to the Linux box. Oops --- can't read anything after page 250. Why? It turns out all those files are empty --- zero bytes in size. Why? Oh, the Mac's hard disk had apparently filled up, and the software didn't check for an I/O error when it wrote the files.

I'm not saying that OSS is always perfect and bug-free, but I doubt that this kind of low-quality code would ever have become widely used if it was open source.

I don't really want closed-source drivers for Linux. All I want is two things:

1. I want to be able to find clear, accurate, up-to-date information on what devices have OSS drivers available, so I can buy hardware that's well supported.
2. I want to be able to install the OSS drivers without a lot of hassles.

Really, #1 seems to be pretty well covered by the SANE folks (although the situation seems to be worse for wireless cards, where there's a ton of out-of-date info on the web, and I didn't find any canonical, well-maintained site that had all the info). #2 is probably slowly getting better too, as Ubuntu becomes more and more mature. I suspect that by the time I upgrade to the next Ubuntu, the scanner driver I need will already be included in SANE by default, and the dependency problems will be fixed.

Re:low-quality drivers

[ardor]

The problem with #2 is that the drivers need constant support, because the kernel changes so fast. Of course it is logical that a driver written for Kernel 2.6.1 may not work with 2.6.15, but sometimes stuff even breaks because it was written for 2.6.14! This makes Linux driver maintenance expensive. If the maintainer does not have 24/7 devotion behind it, the driver is gone.

Contrast this with stuff like ext2fs for Windows. I can *still* use it, even after the updates and the switch from 2000 to XP. There should be a stable API for GPLed OSS drivers, which is changed ONLY between major releases.

Re:low-quality drivers

[hedwards]

Personally, I have had really poor luck with opensource drivers on linux. I tried linux out a ways back because my laptop's sound card was supported. The good news was that I could routinely hear music vs., not at all in FBSD; the bad news was that the sound was horribly crackly and really not useable. Having access to a proprietary driver would have been incredibly useful. A while later the FBSD guys fixed the code so that their driver worked as well as the one for windows.

The moral of the story is that just because it is opensource doesn't mean that it is good, and just because it is closed source doesn't make it bad. But if the code is done properly the results should really always be useable.

Unless somebody is willing and able to bankroll a massive driver initiative to make all possible device drivers available, it makes absolutely no sense to keep closed source drivers from being available. If as in the case with your scanner the driver is that bad, one could always use the time saved with other drivers which work well to write a driver which works.

Icon Similarities...

[ickoonite]

Not only does the default interface look like Windows XP, some of the icons look like their Windows equivalents. The IM icon for Gaim, for example, has more than a passing resemblance to the AOL AIM icon.

...and even more of a resemblance to Apple's iChat icon.

Hmmm.

iqu :|

Re:Icon Similarities...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who fucking cares what the icons look like. Jeezus! If you don't like them.... change them. That is a real petty thing to bring up and complain about. It's like: "Hmmm I really don't have shit to bitch about.... but, this is Slashdot.... so, I'll bitch about the icons"

It's an Operating System

[sqlgeek]

Linux' ability to run proprietary software such as an Oracle database is essential to its success. How is this any different?

Haskell : strange but true

[Hortensia Patel]

Coincidentally, I discovered today that Linspire/Freespire are standardizing on Haskell for core OS development. I'm still blinking a bit about that one, but you have to give them marks for chutzpah.

Proprietary addicts

[Anonymous Coward]

'While I still have my doubts about the long-term wisdom of using crack and heroin, I must say that if you feel you need to use such drugs, Freepharm makes it much easier than any other pharmacy. And, when is all said and done, that's really what Freepharm is all about -- making drugs as easy as possible for users.'"

Still have to pay for CNR?

[crossmr]

I was hoping this would provide a free alternative to the CNR warehouse of Linspire. Linspire isnt' really that expensive to begin with ($50 or even cheaper last I checked). But then asking people to pay $20/year for the CNR warehouse wasn't cool. People don't want to associate some kind of yearly fee with this I don't think.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[ccgr]

agreed I didn't keep Linspire long after they were charing for updats that were free via apt on any other debin based distro

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[crossmr]

I think most people who are geeks won't be using freespire or linspire, so saying you can get them via apt-get doesn't really help the target audience here which is grandma and your other family members.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[GuNgA-DiN]

You can use apt-get to install all the non-commercial software in Freespire. Personally, I don't see $20 / yr. as being excessive considering my time is worth money. I spend more on that every month for my Netflix account.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[crossmr]

And yet getting all that software is easy and free in windows (the non-commercial stuff). The point of CNR was to make it easy to install so that it was just like windows for the people who don't know any better. Since this is supposed to be a free alternative its not much of a free alternative if it still costs money.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[GuNgA-DiN]

Huh? You have a choice:

a) Use Linspire and get a CNR Membership (recommended for computer newbies and those who know nothing about Linux)

b) Use Freespire and apt-get to your heart's content.

It sounds like you are saying: "Well.... I like the ease of use of this CNR service.... but, I just don't want to pay for it". I don't like paying my phone or cable bill either. But, in the real world people pay for goods and services that they use. If you don't want to pay for it.... then you can roll your own or go without.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[crossmr]

No. I'm saying that the whole point of Linspire was to make a Linux distro for the village idiot.
It cost a few bucks but that was a reasonable trade off as it was cheaper than Windows and generally worked as intended.
Freespire is aiming to be the free alternative to Linspire while maintaining that village idiot level ease of use.

As a free alternative, it doesn't work since you still have to pay $20/year for your village idiot to be able to use it. If people know enough to use apt-get and other such things, they probably can run something esle besides Freespire.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[GuNgA-DiN]

I think you've COMPLETELY missed the point. They aren't trying to sell Freespire to grandma or the other family members. They are marketing Freespire to geeks who know a bit about Linux. The company is still selling Linspire as their commercial product. They recommend Linspire and the CNR Warehouse to the customers who are in their target audience. But, for years, the geeks have been saying: "We like Linspire but, it's not for me. It's for my grandmother". Well, now there is a version of Linspire that is geared more towards the geek audience. They aren't trying to sell Freespire to their target market.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[GuNgA-DiN]

There is a whole spectrum of Linux users. Some are on the high end (kernel hackers) and others are on the low end (village idiot). There are a LOT of people in between. Some who are technical, know how to use a computer, but, aren't Linux gurus. Maybe someone switched from Windows to Linux last month. Freespire gives these people a nice smooth transition into the world of Linux. If the person values their time they can fork over $20 and use the CNR service. If they would rather tinker under the hood and learn it for themselves they can apt-get. I don't buy your premise that those who know how to apt will run somethign besides Freespire. Sure, they could.... but, to be honest there are a lot of people out there who are tired of constantly messing around with their Linux distro to get it to work. They just want it to work and I think that Freespire makes that possible for a large percentage of people.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[Coeurderoy]

Not only is the use of CNR not mandatory with either Lin or Freespire, but since in practice you have to pay for a virus scanner and an antispyware for your windows box, and if you do not want to change each year and try a new "free" (as in beer and not speech, or more accuratelly as in "toke" as its free to start, but then you really HAVE to pay) version it will cost you at least 50$/year to have a half way secure Windows PC.
So 20$ is actually cheap.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[crossmr]

Who pays for anti-virus and anti-spyware? All the better ones are free. The point is in Windows, install McAfee and installing AVG require the same level of skill. To install the free software doesn't cost anymore or require any more skill. However in Linux it requires more skill to use apt-get, which was the whole point of the CNR system. Its still not a free alternative if part of it costs money.

Re:Still have to pay for CNR?

[Coeurderoy]

No what really happens is that the average Luser receives a PC with Norton bundled in.
The let the 3 month period expire, get zombified, the machine slows down, doesn't work anymore, and then they find an idiot (me for instance) that fixe their computer when it dies.
Then somebody else downloads some free version, that expires, and then the "friendly helper (idiot)" gets tired and tells them they have to fork over a couple of bucks to get their manchine running.

so it does cost!

Re:nice quip

[aixou]

Nice quip, served you well.

You appear to be misinformed however. Freespire will be released in two distinct versions:

One containing entirely free software, and one containing proprietary codecs (paid for and licensed by Linspire).
The user gets to choose which he uses.

Hence the "Free" -- freedom of choice to opt into one of two free (as in beer) choices: a completely free (as in speech and beer) version, and a free (just as in beer) version.
Seems pretty free to me.

Any questions?

Re: just one little thing

[aixou]

One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:

legality.

Freespire uses fully licensed codecs (paid for by Linspire), whereas EasyUbuntu takes the gray area route of not using fully legal stuff.

Since Linspire is footing the bill for the codecs, I think we can all see which choice is both more practical for the user and more ethical.

Stop trying to look like Windoze...

[b0s0z0ku]

Sheesh! The "launch" menu is basically a clone of the Start menu, which wasn't a great idea in the first place. Give me an application menu that can show up anywhere on the screen like in fvwm or blackbox, and a NeXT/Apple-style dock on one side of the screen for the apps and directories I use most often...

Actually, give me a true 3-button mouse and allow different menus to show up at the pointer site with different combinations of button clicks.

-b.

Re:Stop trying to look like Windoze...

[narfbot]

Hehehe, I've had TWM doing that for years. I have the three buttons mapped to different menus and can get it anywhere I click on the desktop.

Re:Stop trying to look like Windoze...

[b0s0z0ku]

Hehehe, I've had TWM doing that for years. I have the three buttons mapped to different menus and can get it anywhere I click on the desktop.

I was thinking:
left - windowlist
right - actions
middle - normal launcher menu
left + middle = whatever the hell you want
right + middle = WTHYW
l + r = WTHYW

-b.

Re:Stop trying to look like Windoze...

[clickster]

I think you missed the point of Freespire/Linspire. The word they're going for is "simplicity". While I may agree with you on the menus, I don't really want to try to teach my grandmother how to do that. It's far easier to say "look at the top left of your screen where it says 'launch'. Now click there and look for...". People who are looking for something like Freespire want simplicity and consistency. It's in no way, shape, or form, geared toward power users.

Re:Stop trying to look like Windoze...

[b0s0z0ku]

I think you missed the point of Freespire/Linspire. The word they're going for is "simplicity". While I may agree with you on the menus, I don't really want to try to teach my grandmother how to do that.

Sell it with stickers for the mouse buttons. "Menu" "Change Program" and "Actions".

-b.

Re:Binary == bad

[creepynut]

100% Open and free, until you want to use your nVidia card for something more than point and click.

I stand corrected.

[WilliamSChips]

-n/t-

Two other versions in the works

[jiawen]

Two other versions are currently being designed. One, which requires that users give the company some of their intellectual property in exchange for additional software packages, and another, which allows users to exchange a few hours' work for a robust Linux-based system. The first version will be called Inspire; the second, Perspire.

The company is also thinking of donating free software to relatives of the recently deceased. This will naturally be called Expire.

Re:nice quip

[G Morgan]

LAME is free software anyway. The code is there.

Wierd.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Thats bizare, but they might not have asuch a difficult time finding developers. Parrot ( the backend of Perl 6) is beign writeen in Haskell. I like haskell, or at least the idea of it. As the note says they've already written a lot of the packaging system in Ocaml another functional language that was the basis of an experimental microsoft .Net language F#. I'd like to see functional programing take off, but I have my doubts it will in any shape or form. I think Haskell will be a big drawback inthe short term.

Re:Wierd.

[Cal Paterson]

Functional programming has been around for a long time. A very long time. Lisp was invented in 1958.

Re:Wierd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitpickery:
Parrot is written in C.
You are thinking of "Pugs", the most complete Perl6 compiler/interpreter/testbed, which is written in Haskell.

It's perfectly legal in the rest of the world

[parodyca]

>One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:
>
>legality.

Only in the U. S. of Eh. my friend. Up here in the Great White North, not to mention the rest of the free world, (NOT Australia since they've joined the US copyright tyranny) it is completely legal to use most of those codecs that might land an American butt in the slammer.

What I find most frustrating is that because people are so afraid of what the Americans will do, they intentionally cripple these distros. Grrrrr.

Re:It's perfectly legal in the rest of the world

[G Morgan]

Personally I think it would be better if someone released a non crippled distro. The EU is very staunchly against software patents at the moment so the conflict would only bring the problem into the eyes of the public elsewhere.

Re:It's perfectly legal in the rest of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called respecting one's copyright. Just because you "get away with it" doesn't make it ethically right. Would you go into a store and put a CD in your pocket and walk out? I hope not. But many seem to have no problem taking proprietary code from the copyright holder without a second thought. I'm glad to see distros like Freespire letting me run my computer and NOT feel like an ethical slug for stealing it.

Freespire distributes Windows Media, for example, which they have purchased a license to do. I'm sure Microsoft would love to come after Easybuntu or other Linux distros for distributing this without a license. It would be just the kind of example they'd need to show how reckless and non-lawabiding the open source community can be. I have no problem with someone using only FOSS, but I think it's hypocritical, unethical and just plain wrong to steal another's copyrighted work without their permission, even if their lawless mother country doesn't respect US copyrights.

Hans (from the good ol' USA)

Re:It's perfectly legal in the rest of the world

[paving-slab]

even if their lawless mother country doesn't respect US copyrights.

Not lawless, diferent laws.

Tosser.

Re:It's perfectly legal in the rest of the world

[Cal Paterson]

he EU is very staunchly against software patents

Gee, that doesn't correlate at all with the massive fight we had to try and get them not to pass that stupid law.

Re:It's perfectly legal in the rest of the world

[G Morgan]

There have been MEP's that wanted software patents but everytime its come to a vote its always been something like 10:1 against software patents. Maybe they are so strongly against them due to the protestations of the OSS community and others opposed to them but in reality they have never been close to allowing them and get futher away with each attempt by the next corperate whore.

Remember bringing a private bill is not an indication that the majority want it and there has never been a majority in support of this madness. Thats not to say we shouldn't continue to fight the nonsense, MEP's change after all.

Question

[Widowwolf]

Ok I am a windows gamer (World of Warcraft) who is building a second system from scratch and want an easy version of Linux for the OS. I have been tempted for a while to start looking at Linux, and that is all this computer will be for. I would like a distro where you use command prompts as little as possible. IYO what is the easiest version to adapt to from windows as far as install on configuration. I don't want to have to spend money on it, and I want something after a while i can use as a main system. Let me know what you think.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

i switched from windows to linux within the last year.

first of all, get acquanted with linuxquestions.org.

if this is for personal enrichment / value, i'd recommend going debian or a derivative. the derivatives are easier to start with. i'd recommend ubuntu (lots of people seems to love, i've never installed it, but might eventually do so) or simply mepis. i use mepis day in and day out and rarely switch over to winxp.

if this is for business experience, you have to do redhat or suse.

mepis packages (software) are based upon ubuntu's packages. it is kind of like kubuntu (ubuntu with kde instead of gnome), but mepis (kde) is #1 in the mepis community and kubuntu is #2 in the ubuntu community.

keep in mind that your hardware may dictate what distro you use. i think both ubuntu and mepis have live cds - try them and make sure your hardware works with them. if it works with ubuntu and not mepis, ubuntu is the better fo the two choices.

wpa wireless entworking is still an "adventure" in linux. in order to avoid the research and the headaches, i spent $65 on a wireless bridge - my wireless linux box ethernets into the wireless bridge and all is nice and neat. as far as linux is concerned, it is on ethernet.

also keep in mind that there is no one or two right answers. visit linuxquestions.org. other distros will work fine - the most critical parts are between your ears and shoulders - your mind and your heart. i've enjoyed my recent foray into linux and linuxquestions.org's mepis forum has been very helpful.

Re:Question

[dhasenan]

Ubuntu, of course.

If you want to use WINE to run Windows applications, you'll need to use the command line. If you want to recompile your kernel for a speed increase (mainly at boot), you'll need to use the command line. Most other functions you'll need are available with a GUI, and all of them through the command line as well.

SUSE might be as good; I haven't tried it yet. But Ubuntu fulfills your requirements, I think.

Re:Question

[teslar]

yup, seconded. At the moment, Ubuntu is definitely the way to go. And just so I'm not completely offtopic, Freespire is actually based on debian, just like Ubuntu.

Re:Question

[silent_artichoke]

Check out Ubuntu, Mepis, and PCLinuxOS. All of those are easy to use and one of those should give you the right mix of hardware support.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* Mandriva *cough*
Of course you're been here, I take it. "What distro should I choose?" is THE number one question in the Linux community - I bet if you Googled that phrase alone, you'd find scads of conversations just like this one. Best to grab some live CDS - that way you can "test drive" distros and nibble at them a bit at a time until you feel comfortable with one, then get it's install version.

Re:Question

[Captain DaFt]

My favorite is Vector SOHO http://www.vectorlinux.com/ It was way easier for me to setup up than Ubuntu, and has a lot of nice apps straight off the cd. user support forum: http://www.vectorlinux.com/forum2/

Now if you want a distro to try out and get a feel for linux, Puppy http://www.puppyos.com/ is a great live distro designed from scratch to appeal to Windows users and runs great on older equipment. (Its user support is first rate too! http://www.puppyos.com/forums.htm )

Both great Os(es) that I feel are really under rated.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been tempted for a while to start looking at Linux, and that is all this computer will be for. I would like a distro where you use command prompts as little as possible.

I would also recommended Ubunutu for a beginner. Though I would like to say that one of Linux's best features is it's powerful command line and scripting abilities. Though certainly you would not want to be forced to use the command line at first I think it would definitely benefit any serious computer user to learn it. There are plenty of good books and howto's out there on shell programming and the Linux/Unix CLI. Unix power tools is a great one.

One thing I really miss about the earlier days of computing is that when a kid got a computer it was pretty much expected that they would learn to program in basic. Now a days that is just not the case. The CLI and scripting is not really any harder than programming in basic and I think Linux people really should try to help encourage beginners to learn the shell.

Re:Question

[driddle]

I have been tempted for a while to start looking at Linux, and that is all this computer will be for. I would like a distro where you use command prompts as little as possible.

I would also recommended Ubunutu for a beginner. Though I would like to say that one of Linux's best features is it's powerful command line and scripting abilities. Though certainly you would not want to be forced to use the command line at first I think it would definitely benefit most serious computer users to learn it. There are plenty of good books and howto's out there on shell programming and the Linux/Unix CLI. Unix power tools is a great one.

One thing I really miss about the earlier days of computing is that when a kid got a computer is was pretty much expected that they would learn to program in basic. Now a days that is just not the case. The CLI and scripting is not really any harder than programming in basic and I think Linux people really should try to help encourage beginners to learn the shell.

Yes but,

[i_should_be_working]

what does that have to do with how the distro looks? He wasn't saying he wanted no gui, just one that isn't so 'bubbly' like Windows.

I wonder what the ratio here is

[Anonymous Coward]

The ratio of linux leeters who decry freespire or linspire, yet maintain a windows partition "for video games" or "well, my work makes me us blah blah so ..." and other sorts of non-pure cop outs. How many are running some peripheral with a binary blob? I bet the hypocrisy ratio is quite high in that regard. How about using websites that are hosted on non pure, or use something else non-pure? Do they boycott those websites? How about brick and mortar stores? Do they inquire what apps and OS the parent company uses, and if it is "non pure" do they put their squawk where their material goods lust is and boycott? It's like, how far do you want o take it. Seems every company out there that tries to make linux *useable* with a default install gets dissed severely. Yet...you can go to EVERY major distro out there and find the wink wink non nod instructions on getting the non pure stuff up and running. Fedora, mandrake, debian, gentoo, ubuntu, all of them, easy-peasy to find all the instructions necessary to make non pure but functional and find the relevant off shore someplace links to the repositories.

I'd bet more than a weeks pay that the number of linux users using ONLY "pure" open and free software is less than 1%.

Re:I wonder what the ratio here is

[Almahtar]

There's a difference between accepting and utilizing a necessary evil and integrating that necessary evil with your long term operations. I don't pretend to have a well-informed opinion on whether or not the FSF's position on shipping things like proprietary drivers and codecs with GPL software is the correct one, but I know it's important to address that issue before acting in potentially harmful ways (and regretting it later).

Let's not look at the way things are when we decide the way things should be.

Re:I wonder what the ratio here is

[Anonymous Coward]

well, in a perfect world I woud like total free as in speech with code as well. That means I couldn't listen to my net streams (I mostly only listen to talk radio) in MP3 format, couldn't play a DVD movie, and..what's the deal with jpegs again? did they ever become free?

I agree it is a rough row to hoe, I don't have any easy answers, but freespire gives you two choices, capital F free,or semi free (over 99% of the code is free), and both of them are free as in beer free. I guess I can struggle by with a 99% in my favor compromise, seeing as how I compromise in so many other areas in life (example, I detest the mainland chinese government,I think they are totalitarian pigs, but I hypocritically own some hardware manufactured in china-because I want to own a computer and some radios, another example, I live in the US and 100% do NOT agree with the bulk of the foreign policy, but I am not going to renounce my citizenship over it).

life=compromises, and that's just how it is

Re:I wonder what the ratio here is

[Mistshadow2k4]

The ratio of linux leeters who decry freespire or linspire, yet maintain a windows partition "for video games" or "well, my work makes me us blah blah so ..." and other sorts of non-pure cop outs. How many are running some peripheral with a binary blob? I bet the hypocrisy ratio is quite high in that regard.

How many Windows-users pay for programs they know are free? Try this: charge a newbie Windows-user for something like the Gimp, pocket their money, point them to the official website where they can get it for free, explain what you did was perfectly legal and then watch their reaction. Think they'll pay you again? No matter how legal it is for Linspire to run their CnR thingie, *nix-users don't want to pay for free software and a great many view it as a (legal) scam, suckering clueless newbies who don't know that those programs are all free with other distros. Defending Linspire with a charge of hypocrisy at their critics seems like a case of pot vs. kettle. Most would argue that Linspire is the more hypocritical. After all, those who criticise them don't have to deal with them being convicted monopolists.

Re:I wonder what the ratio here is

[Fordiman]

No one but zealots use OSS exclusively. If you do, you're very limited in what you can access.

Hell, the first thing I do when I install linux is get Flash, Java, Acrobat, the MPlayer windows codec pack, and the 300M archive of freeware and MS universal accessibility fonts from my windows computer. Not to mention the Windows driver for my wireless card through ndiswrapper (it's an SiS 162U - completely linux unsupported without ndis).

It'd be nice if I had stable OSS / CC solutions for all this stuff, but I don't. So, I have to make do with the proprietary stuff.

Re:I wonder what the ratio here is

[Fordiman]

I don't see what your problem with linspire is. What you're paying for is time savings, essentially. You're paying $99 for a system that doesn't need much anything in the way of setup, and another $99 per year for guaranteed-working builds of free software (something I've found is lacking in the wikiality of community-assembled builds of OSS).

Usually, linux needs careful configuration to get it working well, and when it's done, it works better than anything else. But it takes time and patience.

Not dissing OSS or anything, but the QC is great with Linspire. I don't use it, but I understand what they are charging for.

Re:I wonder what the ratio here is

[Almahtar]

I'd agree with that, for sure. In modern computing people are more than willing to pay out the nose for convenience. They'd gladly pay a few hundred dollars to never have to use a compiler or touch a command line.

I can't blame them, really: while I don't share their fear/distaste of learning new technologies, I can understand it.

Glad they put users before developers

[martinultima]

First of all, may as well mention that a lot of smaller distributions have included all that stuff for years, but whatever the case it's good to see that one of the big distributions has finally chosen to do something pragmatic and practical rather than follow a bunch of abstract ideas like most of the others (*cough* Debian *cough*) seem to do. Now, don't get me wrong – I do agree that freedom is very important in any context and form – but as far as the whole "proprietary software is EVIL!!" thing goes, I have to say it's just a little bit exaggerated, and besides, there are gray areas – if my video card only works with a proprietary driver on Linux, it's still better from a free software perspective to just use the proprietary driver than to go back or switch to a non-free system.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm glad to see a big-name distribution considering the people who are actually using their system, not just the ones developing it. A lot of people switching to Linux now couldn't care less about the free-vs.-proprietary-software thing – they switch because it's less expensive, or because they don't like Windows and they hear Linux is better. If anything this whole holy war thing probably drives people away rather than bringing them in; if they get a bad first impression, it's hard to change that around. A lot of the reason users still dual-boot Windows or switch to other distributions is because so many distros refuse to include support for MP3's, wireless drivers, Flash, Wine, etc. Obviously this isn't true for everyone, but that's how it is for a lot of my own users. So long story short, it's a lot better to include a couple non-free programs than to risk them switching to an entirely non-free system altogether...

(Sorry if this is too long or off-topic, you can get back to your regular everyday lives now...)

I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how fast this "distro" will fry my system.

SuSE was done within 2 hours
Red hat was gone within 5 minutes
Linspire was the only one to work and never give me problems (aside from my display, it never went past 1024x768 even though I could display 1280x1024 with no problems) the only drawback to it was you had to pay for support.

Ubuntu fried my DVD Drive and that was just from the live CD, which is really pathetic, and before the linux zealots start, my DVD drive NEVER gave me any problems what so ever before I ran that live CD,after I ran it (which wasn't even in that drive) when I put in a DVD it would click really loud and then refuse to burn anything to 100% then it started to refuse burning + discs, then it refuesed to burn - discs, then it refused to read any kind of disc. all this happened AFTER I ran that live CD so I don't know how badly they fucked that disc up but it fried my perfectly working DVD Burner.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMFAO!!

Re:Binary == bad

[Ant P.]

I'll trade this r9200 for your 7950GX2!

Re:nice quip

[Fallen Mongoose]

I understand the free speech part, but I've been to six supermarkets and have yet to find this free beer you speak of.

Sounds great...but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still a stupid name.

(Who let the computer geeks neer the marketing department?!?!?!)

Mepis

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Mepis Linux come with proprietary software, and isn't it a free distrobution? When I installed it, it had Java, Flash Player, MP3 support, and Realplayer installed.

Additional:

[wild_berry]

I heard rumours about a friend of a friend who disappeared for using a secret version called conspire; no matter to me: I've got my copy when I burned all my previous computer software and hardware. I rather like using Pyre.

I'm horrified

[Tinned_Tuna]

Because they've fallen for the same trap as Microsoft Windows: They put the button you push to turn the machine off in a sub menu of the button you push to start your work! What could possibly be next? Insert headers and footers in the View menu on the Freespire-customized version of OpenOffice.org?

May god save us all.

Nonsense.

[twitter]

Try this: charge a newbie Windows-user for something like the Gimp, pocket their money, point them to the official website where they can get it for free, explain what you did was perfectly legal and then watch their reaction. Think they'll pay you again? No matter how legal it is for Linspire to run their CnR thingie, *nix-users don't want to pay for free software and a great many view it as a (legal) scam

If all you do is point, the user has a right to be pissed. That's not what Linspire or any other Linux company is doing. Most users expect you to sit down and make sure everything works before they pay you. If it does work, they will be happy to fork over the cash because you just saved them the difference between your hour's wage and the cost of a non free program that does the same thing, $600 - 40 = $560.

What the commercial Linux companies are doing is packaging free software so that it works together. That's a big job. They have to modify configuration files, compile and do other nasty tasks. Debian does it though volunteers and is big on user freedom. Linspire is using that base and adding non free junk. M$ takes non free junk, most of which comes from competitors, and passes it along.

What the user wants is something that works. The Linspire, Xandros and Mepis approach has it's benefits and dangers. The benefit is that all your non free hardware and popular software can work right out of the box. My wife loves watching You Tube with Mepis and it's much easier to set up than Debian proper. The dangers are all those associated with non free junk, a lack of long term credibility and difficulty upgrading. Binary blobs are just as sticky and brittle in the Linux world as they are elsewhere, though the sane separation of user and system files helps a lot. Upgrading Mepis is just as easy as installing it in the first place. The hard part is when you want a program that's not included. In the worst case, you have to download 500 MB of dependencies and they break your non free crappo. In the best case, you just install the newest CD and then get all your favorite applications. A completely free system does not have that issue. It can be incrementally upgraded for six to ten years, without fear of breaking installed applications, until the hardware is so obsolete it's not worth the electricity it eats. You should also note that it's easier for the distribution to not bother with non free junk that does not work. Distributions that make non free stuff go are having to do a lot of extra work, sometimes completely in the dark, to make sure it all works together. They also have to trust the non free software maker in a way that you should not. For most users, none of the above problems is a big deal and they are happy to fork over the money it takes to make sure things work right. Happy in slavery, sometimes and sometimes not.

What users really resent is the way M$ makes you feel like a sucker. You can go full out, buying nothing but "professional" versions of the software, the most expensive hardware AND IT STILL MIGHT NOT WORK. The more you add, the more likely it is something won't get along with something else and the system degrades with time no matter what you do. With a 12 minute half life on any network, no M$ system lasts very long. The difference between a Linspire "sucker" and a M$ "sucker" is about $1,000 is software and hardware costs. The addage is, "Linux" makes a new computer out of trash and Windoze makes a new computer into trash." DRM in Vista are going to make things even worse.

Re:Nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88413&cid=7656 803
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77588&cid=6896 690
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73226&cid=6595 921
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71864&cid=6492 229
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69025&cid=6312 196
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49657&cid=5011 656
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180946&thresho ld=1&cid=14972959
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129735&thresho ld=5&cid=10823036
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112229&cid=952 1025&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137420&cid=114 89094&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155076&cid=130 11391&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113493&thresho ld=5&cid=9614809
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164775&cid=137 51004
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126301&thresho ld=5&cid=10572437
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119108&thresho ld=5&cid=10056927
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=135403&cid=112 99129&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=136181&thresho ld=5&cid=11374447
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134005&thresho ld=5&cid=11203454
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159878&thresho ld=0&cid=13384602
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166661&cid=138 99128&threshold=2
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168164&cid=140 19967
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168163&cid=140 20030&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172399&thresho ld=1&cid=14355804

Re:Nonsense.

[WilliamSChips]

Yes, twitter makes incredibly great posts.

Re:Nonsense.

[jb.hl.com]

I completely agree. They never fail to make me spit coffee all over everything through laughing so goddamn hard.

Translation to twitterese

[Anonymous Coward]

If all you do i$ point, the u$er ha$ a right to be pi$ $ed. That'$ not what Lin$pire or any other Linux company i$ doing. Mo$t u$er$ expect you to $it down and make $ure everything work$ before they pay you. If it doe$ work, they will be happy to fork over the ca$h becau$e you ju$t $aved them the difference between your hour'$ wage and the co$t of a non free program that doe$ the $ame thing, $600 - 40 = $560.

What the commercial Linux companie$ are doing i$ packaging free $oftware $o that it work$ together. That'$ a big job. They have to modify configuration file$, compile and do other na$ty ta$k$. Debian doe$ it though volunteer$ and i$ big on u$er freedom. Lin$pire i$ u$ing that ba$e and adding non free junk. MS take$ non free junk, mo$t of which come$ from competitor$, and pa$ $e$ it along.

What the u$er want$ i$ $omething that work$. The Lin$pire, Xandro$ and Mepi$ approach ha$ it'$ benefit$ and danger$. The benefit i$ that all your non free hardware and popular $oftware can work right out of the box. My wife love$ watching You Tube with Mepi$ and it'$ much ea$ier to $et up than Debian proper. The danger$ are all tho$e a$ $ociated with non free junk, a lack of long term credibility and difficulty upgrading. Binary blob$ are ju$t a$ $ticky and brittle in the Linux world a$ they are el$ewhere, though the $ane $eparation of u$er and $y$tem file$ help$ a lot. Upgrading Mepi$ i$ ju$t a$ ea$y a$ in$talling it in the fir$t place. The hard part i$ when you want a program that'$ not included. In the wor$t ca$e, you have to download 500 MB of dependencie$ and they break your non free crappo. In the be$t ca$e, you ju$t in$tall the newe$t CD and then get all your favorite application$. A completely free $y$tem doe$ not have that i$ $ue. It can be incrementally upgraded for $ix to ten year$, without fear of breaking in$talled application$, until the hardware i$ $o ob$olete it'$ not worth the electricity it eat$. You $hould al$o note that it'$ ea$ier for the di$tribution to not bother with non free junk that doe$ not work. Di$tribution$ that make non free $tuff go are having to do a lot of extra work, $ometime$ completely in the dark, to make $ure it all work$ together. They al$o have to tru$t the non free $oftware maker in a way that you $hould not. For mo$t u$er$, none of the above problem$ i$ a big deal and they are happy to fork over the money it take$ to make $ure thing$ work right. Happy in $lavery, $ometime$ and $ometime$ not.

What u$er$ really re$ent i$ the way MS make$ you feel like a $ucker. You can go full out, buying nothing but "profe$ $ional" ver$ion$ of the $oftware, the mo$t expen$ive hardware AND IT $TILL MIGHT NOT WORK. The more you add, the more likely it i$ $omething won't get along with $omething el$e and the $y$tem degrade$ with time no matter what you do. With a 12 minute half life on any network, no MS $y$

Re:Translation to twitterese

[Almahtar]

I would love to delete your post. How petty.

Easy != Low initial learning curve

[CarpetShark]

The problem with windows is that it allows people to use a networked computer without learning anything about security. This is false simplicity, much like allowing someone to begin drive a car on an empty road is false simplicity, when that empty road leads to crowded city junctions.

Linspire following the fundamentally flawed (and now abandoned) windows model of using root accounts for normal users is just dumb.