Linspire Releases Controversial Version 6.0

christian.einfeldt writes "Today, Linspire releases version 6.0, its first new GNU/Linux distro in more than two years. With version 6.0, Linspire is betting that its business model of including licenses for proprietary software and formats such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, Flash, Real, and Microsoft OOXML will win enough market share among mainstream Apple and Microsoft users to offset the backlash from opponents of proprietary software and formats. Version 6.0 also includes the highly controversial Microsoft patent coverage that has incited wide-reaching negative press coverage in the Free Open Source Software press, forums and blogosphere. But from Linspire's perspective, it's all about those new GNU/Linux users. '"Today we continue the Linspire tradition by offering the choice of a better overall experience for users new to desktop Linux,'" said Larry Kettler, President and CEO of Linspire, Inc. "Linspire 6.0 further bridges the gap between open source and commercial software, combining the best from each into a single easy-to-use, familiar and productive operating system."'"

Comments

Wow that is a loaded story.

[jellomizer]

So the product is controversial because they worked with other companies (who may not be RMS's version of Open Source Advocates) to create a product that will work well with other systems and try to give features that Customers want. Life is sometimes a lot better when you decide to work with the system other then fighting it all the time.
        There is a common misconception that everyone needs to change the world, for most people they just want to get by. Without the Morality of it all Linux is a Good OS not great but good, and technically not worth all the zealotry. So for the majority of people who needs a Good OS that is inexpensive Linux is a good option if they need to pay some price for a distribution to get improved compatibility so they can get along with their lives easer then all the better.
        Microsoft, Apple, ... are not the enemies they are competitors. There is a difference between the two. Competitors you can work together for a common goal enemies you can't. Microsoft and Apple are willing to work with Linux distribution makers if they realize they can benefit from it. The Linux Zealots who have make Microsoft their enemy have loss out on a chance to expand what they can do.
        So if I can now go to a web site and view Quicktime and Microsoft Format then all the better and if it is supported my Microsoft then there is a better chance (not complete) that the next version wont entirely kick me out).
        Being a constant activist really wares people down and actually makes them miserable people. Where if you can work within the system you will feel better and probably get more good done.

Re:Wow that is a loaded story.

[trolltalk.com]

> "Microsoft, Apple, ... are not the enemies they are competitors."

"Microsoft is an enemy. Apple is a competitor."

There, fixed it for you.

Don't be under any illusions - Microsoft is an avowed enemy of linux and open source in general. Otherwise, why all the BS and FUD over alleged patent violations.

Competitors compete. What Microsoft has done in the past, and continues to do, is not competition. It goes well beyond what's legal (for example, the latest FUD from the ABalmernation on patents would be a Lanham Act violation, except he said it in the UK).

When you can't compete, you cheat. Let us know when Microsoft starts competing ...

Re:Wow that is a loaded story.

[ricegf]

Microsoft, Apple, ... are not the enemies they are competitors.

Yep. But please hear me out as a former Linspire customer.

The question with respect to Microsoft (particularly, given their conviction for monopolistic behavior) is, "Will they compete fairly?"

The general consensus based on years of observed behavior is, "No."

The concern is that deals such as Linspire signed imply that Microsoft has some legitimate patent claims against free software included in Linspire's product - a claim Microsoft has made but has refused to verify.

I have no problem with licensing deals for legitimate patents (pretending for the moment that any patent on software can be legitimate), but I dislike licenses for unspecified patents claimed to be in someone else's code. Linspire's agrement with Microsoft is analogous to poisoning the free software developer's well - and the code owners seem to largely have read it as both an insult and an attack. Me, too.

Simply licensing codecs doesn't concern me at all. It's the fuzzy patent licenses taken on other people's code that causes the unpleasant odor around Linspire Corporation and their products.

Hope that's clear and unemotional enough to help you understand the core issue. Well, at least my core issue. :-)

Re:Wow that is a loaded story.

[wulfbyte]

I differ with you on a number of issues. Linux or if you insist, GNU/Linux is an excellent operating system. It does precisely what an operating system should do and does it very well. I think what you are confusing is the support for proprietary file formats and applications that are being bundled or not bundled with particular distributions. Generally, proprietary file formats are not standards at all but rather a method of confining consumers to a particular way of doing things for the benefit of the creators of the proprietary format. By continuing to offer support for the old closed format rather than newer (and just as capable) open standards, distributions do nothing to further consumer choice.

I believe you are wrong when you say that offering support for these closed formats is giving consumers what they want. I think it is fair to say that for the majority, no one cares what format the content arrives in, so long as it works when and how they expect it to.

If support for open formats were to suddenly take off, then more content producers will use them and the whole argument that working with closed format vendors is somehow beneficial evaporates. If there is a way of doing something that is beneficial to many as opposed to a few, is that not a better way?

I am by no means a Linux zealot, but I must take exception to your characterization that Microsoft is somehow considered the enemy by only them. Microsoft should be considered the enemy of all free thinking people regardless of their choice of operating system, simply because Microsoft would remove that choice had they their way. I believe you can find many historical and well documented cases where various judicial systems agree that Microsoft is in every case attempting to reduce consumer choice to but a single and not often beneficial one.

As to being an activist, it is precisely in following what I believe, without regard for the opinions of those who disagree with me that that allows me to continue my existence with sufficient dignity and self respect that my moments of misery are reduced to such a number that they only add needed poignancy to an otherwise happy life. Activism is a simple thing and it has great rewards, much like courtesy.

Re:Wow that is a loaded story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever there is a choice, ethics comes to the table.

Please do not confuse what you can or cannot do (metaphysics) with what should or should not be done (ethics).

Let me rephrase your rant using a more obvious ethical issue, that you might see the errors in your statement with respect to ethics:

So the clothing is controversial because they worked with other companies (who may not be America's version of No-Slavery) to create clothing that will fit well on many people and try to give styles that customers want. Life is sometimes a lot better when you decide to work with the system other then fighting it all the time.
                There is a common misconception that everyone needs to change the world, for most people they just want to get by. Without the morality of it all, clothing created without slave labor is good not great but good, and technically not worth all the zealotry. So for the majority of people who need passable clothes that are inexpensive, slavery free is a good option; if they need to use slaves for clothing to get better styles so they can get along with their lives easer then all the better.
                India, China, ... are not the enemies they are competitors. There is a difference between the two. Competitors you can work together for a common goal enemies you can't. India and China are willing to sell slave labor to US clothing manufacturers if they realize they can benefit from it. The US zealots who have made China their enemy have loss out on a chance to expand what they can do.
                So if I can now go to a nightclub and wear the latest fashion then all the better and if it is created by China then there is a better chance (not complete) that I'll be able to buy the same thing next time I gain 15 kg.
                Being a constant activist really wares people down and actually makes them miserable people. Where if you can work within the system you will feel better and probably get more good done.


Software includes choices, and therefore (by definition) includes ethics. You cannot remove ethical considerations from choices any more than you can make a shape that is both a square and a circle at the same time; it doesn't make any logical sense.

Proprietary software that you use takes away essential freedom. Maybe you don't want to exercise that freedom, but by making use of the software you are creating a Network Product that is also proprietary. This proprietary Network Product then takes away essential freedom from *everybody* who uses it, regardless if they chose to use it of their own free will or were coerced/forced to use it (due to school, work, family, country, etc). This loss of freedom is unacceptably unethical.

I'll close this with a quote from Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom -- go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 August 1776)

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Re:Wow that is a loaded story.

[noidentity]

Just wanted to boil your good comment down more: Competitors try to make a better product so you'll choose theirs over others. Enemies (anti-competitors) try to destroy the competition so you're left with no choice but theirs.

Re:See this?

[nine-times]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the big deal is. If you don't like Linspire's approach, don't buy it. If you really want a Linux distro with all these things built-in and installed by default, then it's good for you that someone is providing that.

Does there need to be conflict and controversy?

Re:See this?

[nuzak]

> Does there need to be conflict and controversy?

Half of slashdot seems to validate their existence from it. Not excluding myself either -- I'm sorry to say I'm often drawn into it too.

We need some kind of pledge, or at least a maxim like "Is it worth it to be right if the argument itself is stupid?"

Re:Linspire...

[japetto_bootsnakes]

Exactly. If you can't beat em...

Just what we need.

[dotancohen]

I install Linux over Windows about once every three or four weeks for friends. One of the first things to do is add mp3 support, and also ATI or nVidia support if need be. This used to be a hassle with Fedora, so I switched to installing Kubuntu. Now, this may make our lives even easier. How many Linux installs get MP3, DVD, or other proprietary support installed anyway? Why should we bash a company that is willing to include it from the get-go. I'll look into the non-OSS version of Freespire this evening, RMS be damned.

GNU/Linux

[Speare]

It's all about those new GNU/Linux users.

I know it's an oft-repeated argument, about whether or not to put the GNU/ on that product or platform. But extending the usual meme slightly may shed some new light on that debate. I'm just hoping it won't produce flame instead.

Linspire isn't just Linux. It's not even just GNU/Linux. Some might call it GNU/Apache/Qt/Linux/etc. Now it's GNU/Apache/Qt/Microsoft/Adobe/Real/Linux/etc. Pretty soon, your "free software" is going to have more corporate badges than a brand new laptop.

Re:File Formats A Necessary Evil

[Hatta]

Since when is this a problem for linux? Mplayer and vlc play anything I throw at them. Maybe it's not entirely legal, but since when does the end user care? How is Linspire going to make legit codecs a selling point when the average user doesn't even know what a codec is, and why they need to be licensed?

why people hate linspire

[EllynGeek]

A big problem with Linspire was its former CEO, Kevin Carmony. They guy is a snake-oil salesman with no technical expertise. The idea of bundling all this closed, proprietary crud and paying to license codecs isn't all that terrible- people who don't want it have plenty of other Linux distributions to choose from. Though Linspire went overboard and ignored perfectly good FOSS alternatives in several cases. But Mr. Carmony's double-talk and criticism of Free and open source software alienated a whole lot of people. He doesn't understand the basic Unix security model, and despite his later denials, Linspire did indeed deliberately create only a root user during installation up through Linspire 5.0, and had zero documentation for educating their precious "new Linux desktop users" on the importance of security fundamentals.

Then a bigger problem was Linspire itself was poo. It had many broken parts, and their much-hyped CNR didn't offer anything that users wanted. But you did get a genuine, time-wasting infuriating Windows-like experience with bales of crapware, nagware, and trialware that just wouldn't shut up and go away.

To make matters worse, Carmony badmouthed FOSS principles and deliberately misstated the meaning of "free" in free software when he released Freespire. I know, the word "free" meaning "libre" is problematic anyway, and Carmony made it worse. He pretty much spit on the very community that made it possible for Linspire to exist.

So. Maybe a new CEO will make it all better. Time will tell.

Allow me to explain it.

[khasim]

I just don't get it, this need for compatibility with propriety standards. Why use Linux and then bitch that you can't use Windows-centric (or non-open) codecs/programs?

There are some people out there who do not WANT Linux.

They want free (as in beer) Microsoft Windows. But that takes too many words so they simply (and incorrectly) say "Linux". But what they really mean is "free (as in beer) Microsoft Windows".

Linux is not Microsoft Windows.

Linux is about Freedom (as in speech). But many people (and they are very vocal) do not want Freedom. They want "free" (as in beer) versions of proprietary apps to play proprietary content for "free" (again, as in beer) in proprietary formats.

still puzzled how could you be modded insightful

[someone1234]

"Microsoft, Apple, ... are not the enemies they are competitors. There is a difference between the two. Competitors you can work together for a common goal enemies you can't. Microsoft and Apple are willing to work with Linux distribution makers if they realize they can benefit from it. The Linux Zealots who have make Microsoft their enemy have loss out on a chance to expand what they can do."

I would suggest you to read up on the Halloween documents so you'll see how 'friendly' M$ is.

Ohhh Dear....

[asphaltjesus]

Life is sometimes a lot better when you decide to work with the system other then fighting it all the time.

No! Commercial software is the equivalent of an innovation tar pit. You are pretending there is some kind of peaceful coexistence when no such thing exists in commercial software. They made an old movie with a fairy tale ending that illustrates the reality. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/

Unless you like paying more for communicating less with others, you will reconsider your position.

Linux is a Good OS not great but good, and technically not worth all the zealotry.
As a sysadmin, Linux is heads and shoulders above windows. Transparent, logical, flexible while remaining secure. The same cannot be said for a Win32 server. Auditing? Very limited and cryptic. Logging? Cryptic and inflexible. Secure? Who knows! Flexible? Certainly not as delivered. Don't get me started on the when the myriad of license limits kick in.

Is Linux the best tool for every job? No. Please take this opportunity to establish a little more objectivity.

Re:Ohhh Dear....

[rnswebx]

Unless you like paying more for communicating less with others, you will reconsider your position.

Are you serious? In case you haven't been paying attention to the real world, proprietary formats dominate the majority of the communication markets. I'm certainly no fan of getting locked into what XYZ corporation's version oF ABC either, but that doesn't mean it's not happening...

• Want to write a document? Microsoft dominates here. (Word) Also Pages (Apple) and Wordperfect (Corel)
  
• Want to send an IM to someone? AOL (AIM), Microsoft (MSN), Yahoo (YMSG) are all proprietary, and that's only listing a few.
  
• Spreadsheets? Microsoft again dominates (Excel) and I can't even think of another application that's used outside of the very small OpenOffice crowd, other than the brand new Numbers '08 (Apple)
  
• Presentations? Keynote (Apple) and Powerpoint (Microsoft)
  

I purposely didn't go through an exhaustive list of every possible piece of software you can use to do the things outlined here, as there are alternatives for each, including open source. I just listed the most commonly used applications, all of which are proprietary. We could continue, with stuff like diagrams/flow charts (Visio/OmniGraffle) or video formats (too many to list) and a number of others.

I've been a Linux (GNU/Linux, if you must) user since '96. I love it. I've made a career out of utilizing it's strengths. Would I like to see more open standards and less proprietary garbage floating around? I most definitely would. Unfortunately, that's just not how it is... yet? I live in this place called reality, where we have to work with what's here until it's changed.

Some may argue that if we support these formats, then we're contributing to stagnation. Turn it around and ask, if we made it easier for Joe User to use Linux and introduce him to how Linux works, what could that Joe User potentially mean to Linux?

As a sysadmin, Linux is heads and shoulders above windows. Transparent, logical, flexible while remaining secure. The same cannot be said for a Win32 server. Auditing? Very limited and cryptic. Logging? Cryptic and inflexible. Secure? Who knows! Flexible? Certainly not as delivered. Don't get me started on the when the myriad of license limits kick in.

A bit off-topic, as I think this conversation is about Linspire which is obviously aimed at the desktop. As I've tried to outline above, I don't think it's a bad idea to include proprietary format support in a Linux distribution. If an end user wants less headaches when it comes to getting support for the most commonly used applications, what's the problem? If you don't like it then don't buy it. Isn't that easy? :)

It's absolutely no surprise to me that the Linux desktop has not gotten to where it needs to be. If you want to actually communicate with the real world, you're going to have to include support (preferably seamless support) for these proprietary formats that are going to put so many of the zealots up in arms. Just because your operating system supports these formats doesn't mean that you're a proponent of non-open standards, does it? To me it simply means that you want to be able to communicate with the vast majority of the rest of the world who, believe it or not (GASP!), aren't using Linux.

I think if we made Linux more accessible, then it'd likely lead to more people understanding that there are free, alternative ways to do the things we do today. If that happened, then it's my opinion we could slowly start eating away at these proprietary standards. Without a big enough user base, our complaints aren't heard loud enough and are largely ignored... in my opinion.

Paying for software?

[MobyDisk]

This is great. The first thing I do when I setup a new Windows/Mac/Linux machine is to install all the standard stuff that nobody includes. Ex:

Windows: WinAmp, XVID, FireFox...
Mac: Flip4Mac, VLC, DIVX, ...
Linux: MP3 support for XMMS, Video drivers, ...

I understand why Linux distros can't install this stuff. It requires licenses, and the OS is free.

But I would gladly pay $50 for a distro that had this. Most end-users would too (many of them pay me far more than that for time it takes me to do it manually). The Slashdot editorial ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hheadline makes it sounds like Linspire paid for a Novell-like or SCO-like patent license. That isn't what the press release says. It says they included some codecs.

Every year is supposed to be the year of "Linux on the desktop" yet whenever an article comes out about Linspire trying to make that happen, all the geeks jump on them like they are awful. Linspire is trying to make Linux easy and friendly and a pretty package. Yes, they rebranded RPM/DEB modules as "click-and-run" Yes, they pay licenses for stuff so you don't have to download it. They provide a service to the end-user, and we should be happy for every new Linux user who installs it and says "Hey, this is really great! It has everything I need" instead of complaining and making them look like Microsoft's evil twin brother.

Re:Ask him.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Linux is NOT "free-as-in-beer Microsoft Windows" nor was it designed to be.

Correct, but confusing
People want something that works, is easy, and is not expensive. Linux (the kernel) doesn't really care about whats going on in userland. Linux ( the Gnu/Linux Distros) can be windows like and Lindows/Linspire specifically was designed to be. Most aren't, but you cant really say that Debian is somehow more linux than Suse, Ubuntu, or even And thats cool. No moral or ethical violations need occur.

Re:File Formats A Necessary Evil

[JesterXXV]

Maybe it's not entirely legal, but since when does the end user care?

Are you serious? You don't think an end user would have a problem with illegal software on their computer?

And I was *so* enthused about their Click&Run!

[KWTm]

I had been prepared to buy Linspire, or at least get their Click&Run service. I do think that the next leg of Linux's path to maturity involves commercial (not necessarily proprietary) software that runs on the Linux platform.

Then I go visit the Linspire web site, listing all the features:
Plug'n'play drivers: yea!
Multimedia support: yea!
Respects Microsoft IP: --WHAT!??

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Linspire's been having sex with Microsoft.

Oh, well. Was nice knowing you. I'll stick to (k)Ubuntu, myself.

NOT Proprietary...

[evilviper]

[...] proprietary software and formats such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, Flash, Real, and Microsoft OOXML

Quicktime is absolutely, 100% non-proprietary at this point... h.264, MPEG-4 (ASP), AAC, MP3, are all open standards. They require patent license fees, but so do most open standards, including the WiFi card your probably using...

Windows Media is at least mostly open, with VC-1 now an SMPTE standard.

Microsoft is working towards standardizing OOXML as well. It's getting a lot of heat for not being entirely free, while ODF is, but that doesn't make it proprietary.

Real also isn't a very good example, with a player having long been provided for free use on any available Linux system.

Of note is that only the Slashdot summary made these mistakes. TFA did not mention these as proprietary. It did incorrectly mention many other open standards as being proprietary: MP3, Java, PDF, Flash, etc. though at least Flash was proprietary in the past. It also confuses proprietary software (closed implementations) eg. Acrobat, and proprietary standards eg. PDF.

Re:File Formats A Necessary Evil

[westlake]

I can play more wmv's on my Gentoo Linux box (using Kaffeine/Xine) than I can on my WindowsXP laptop.

Let us know when the WalMart shopper is buying your Gentoo box off the shelf. Because that is Linspire's target audience.

Re:See this?

[mrsteveman1]

CNR seems more like a front end to me, it just happens to include the ability to buy commercial software as well, thats the basic difference.

Something Ubuntu needs though, is the ability for users to browse to a website, say, the Ubuntu wiki, and click a single link to install software. Novell just got done introducing something like this and its a good thing to have.

For instance, instead of writing out 2 pages of "heres how you install this package, open a terminal, blah blah" they can simply click a provided link to install the package and all its requirements.

I do like the fact that we have Ubuntu around, but make no mistake Ubuntu is very bare at the moment and lacks a lot of things.

Re:See this?

[mrsteveman1]

I can't say this strongly enough, there NEEDS to be proprietary codec and format support in Linux. The right course of action is to make the real versions available and work on FOSS implementations at the same time. We can't pretend that the world and everyone in it using Linux are going to pause until everything can be replaced with FOSS software, there must be a middle ground that includes real versions of Flash, Real media, Windows Media, Quicktime, etc. So far Adobe and Real have done very well supporting Linux, and people can choose to use those things if they want to.

That doesn't mean we should stop developing FOSS implementations like Gnash or libavcodec, it just means we need to be realistic and provide support for things should people choose to use them, especially when proprietary versions are the only real option due to stability and compatibility with the format in question.