LindowsOS Marches On 474
alphabet26 writes "I just received Lindow's 2001 Wrap-up e-mail, and it looks like they're still forging ahead regardless of the lawsuit Microsoft filed against them. In the update, CEO Michael Robertson included a letter in response addressed to Bill Gates, and also some screenshots of what the new LindowsOS will look like. He predicts the retail version will be available in the early months of 2002."
As so they should... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should not cease their work until either they choose (i.e. if the market decides they are complete vapourware after all....), or until they are forced to, if a suitably independent judgement decides they are in fact infringing on an extant trademark.
Now the prime issues are will they actually get a decent useable product to market, and can they get suitably independent justice. Their adversary is one of the largest patrons of the legal trade after all...
i don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows apps are what makes windows what it is, and vice versa. If you want to run windows apps, run windows or an emulator.
Re:are you sure that's lindows? (Score:2, Insightful)
don't you think it's strange that the office icons seem slightly rounded at the corners, when an os that ran windows apps natively should surely use the application provided icons.
AND THERE'S A *WINDOWS* EXPLORER ICON IN THE START MENU FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
The Benefits? (Score:2, Insightful)
Im not sure that the world needs/wants a better Windows than Windows. I don't need to remind anyone of the success of *all* previous endeavours to accomplish the same feat.
Re:are you sure that's lindows? (Score:4, Insightful)
That, of course, is the ultimate goal.
If they can truly sell their product as a 'Windows replacement' rather than just a highly tweaked Linux distro, they'll be able to do some business in the Windows Desktop market.
Of course, there were some pretty glaring problems in the screen shots, such as the missing text on the IE buttons. This would be enough to upset people I've done tech support for:
"But it's supposed to say 'Mail'! Why does it say 'Mai'?!"
But, all in all, I've yet to see so clean a Wine screenshot.
Good luck guys. You're starting with both feet in the gutter, especially with the lawsuit, but I think you might actually have a chance.
Why LindowsOS will inevitably fail... (Score:5, Insightful)
"How much will LindowsOS cost? For $99 users can obtain LindowsOS along with the promise that Lindows.com will work hard to give consumers real value. Your satisfaction, is always assured, since all Lindows.com products come with a money-back, satisfaction guarantee. Creating a compatible, stable, easy-to-use OS isn't an easy job, and Lindows.com is committed to remain in this market for many years to come. This fee will help Lindows.com continue to provide support and future updates to LindowsOS."
They're charging $99 for this. How ridiculous. OEM versions of Genunie Windows cost about the same... and they are guaranteed to work with _all_ Windows software. This is like saying, "Well, a could get a Genuine Mac built by Apple, or I could get a clone for the same price." That's absurd.
"At the core of Lindows.com is a new operating system called LindowsOSTM, a modern, affordable, easy-to-use operating system with the ability to run both Windows® and Linux® software."
Revolutionary new OS called LindowsOS? Really. Kinda looks like a skinned version of KDE running atop Linux to me. Maybe they'll mask the bootup console output with a nice graphic. This is completely ridiculous for two reasons: 1) It costs about the same amount as Windows, which is guaranteed to run all Windows apps. 2) Linux is free. It's used (mostly) by programmers for things that suit their needs. Last time I checked $99 + $0 = $99. So... use Genuine Windows to run Windows apps... and boot into Linux to use Linux apps. If you're a die-hard Linux user, there's WINE anyway (which I think is what this is based on). If you're a die-hard Windows user, boot into Linux when you have to. End of story.
I doubt this is windows in disguise (Score:5, Insightful)
Case 1) Lindows is actually Windows2000,XP, etc with vmware or the like running linux on demand.
Case 2) Lindows is actually Windows2000,XP, etc with a custom linux emulator that runs apps on demand, seamlessly.
Case 3) Lindows is Linux running VMware for a Windows desktop.
Case 4) Lindows is Linux running CodeWeaver's Wine to launch windows apps on demand.
Case 5) Lindows is Linux running a new windows emulator or API that we haven't previously heard of.
Case 6) Lindows is a new OS, that is both windows and linux and runs elf and exe executables natively.
Case 7) Lindows is a hoax.
Now the breakdown.
Cases 1 and 2 are absurd. They would have reason to fear microsoft if they are just renaming and reselling Microsoft's product. However these solutions give the ultimate in Windows software compatibility (Joe Sixpack translation : my games will run really smoothly).
Case 3 is possible, but apps would run slowly, no OpenGL support, games would be lousy on VMware. Best chance of Software compatibility. Plus they have to license VMWare.. And why not just go with a known good linux distro and do this. The product would offer no market distinction.
Case 4 is possible. Games would run better than on VMWare with OpenGL and DirectX support. Some apps would be broken though. Once again, this is no different that what could be done with SuSE, debian, mandrake, slackware, etc...
Case 5 is possible though unlikely. I'm sure there would be some leakage of information if a superior wine had been brewing for the last couple of years.
Case 6
Case 7 is certainly possible. I'll not be the fool and discredit the claims that they are making on their website.
My guess is that Case 7 is correct, and Case 5 is a close second. Case 1 is possible if the company had the balls and stupidity to repackage and resell a Microsoft product.
-fc
.
Re:This sounds like a fricking joke. (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to sound like a puny/pathetic wimp but...If I read in the paper that Bill Gates and M$ corporation were suing me and also read that he wanted to settle voluntarily out of court. I would be volunteering by ALL available means to stay out of his court (even ifthey are not bought, the playing field could NOT be level). I think the letter sounded like a very professional way of saying what one
Have a nice day
I wish them well with their... whatever it is that their goals are.
Re:Linux+Wine=LindowsOS (Score:3, Insightful)
> to switch over because it has some fancy styling
> and Wine installed.
And this is such a bad thing? Linux could use a bigger user base. And a nice, standard distribution where the rest of the OS is tuned to WINE's operation is attractive to people dependent on Win32 apps.
Software freedom (Score:0, Insightful)
Software tech. can't improve this way, there's got to be some freedom.
Might have a point.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Watch my karma get mauled for not completely siding with Linux... : )
Why no Linux apps? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:i don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
answers : no & no - Re:Impressive [...] skepti (Score:5, Insightful)
1. the pricing will be
2. they won't contribute back to GPL. They are here to make money you know.
I see two possible outcomes :
1. They succeed. We are all morons because they did in a few months what we (open source developers) couldn't do in ten years.
2. They fail. We are all deeply fucked because evryone will laugh saying : "linux is not for the desktop", "windows is easier", etc.
Re:Still sounds like a hoax. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not unlike Mac OS X and Mac OS 9(great, I said Mac, there's a mod down, huh?)
While i'm migrating from 9 to X -
I get to see and feel the power of a competently built OS
I get to see that my machine does not crash every few minutes
i get to see how great it is to run 20 apps all at the same time and not crash the thing
i still get to crutch back to my apps that i love and won't give up just yet.
This is the point of Lindows.
I've been able to be 100% Mac OS X since early January 2001 thanks to Classic. I am now only two apps away from being Classic-free on my machine (PhotoShop and First Class Client). And it only took a year.
I think Lindows is a great idea - I think that if they can make WINE function as well as Apple made the Classic environment (nearly-seamless cut/copy/paste, drag-n-drop, etc) The screenshots seem to indicate this as their goal.
They will succeed in their target area if they succeed in their goals - companies who want to save $200 + licensing fees + fee to connect to the server on thier $500 computers.
My God - its more expensive for the SOFTWARE to run an all Windows operation now than it is to buy the hardware!
But you have to give people some means of getting to a Linux solution.. you can't drop them into it head first.. then you can start doing the transition from MS-only to MS-free... you just need that intermediate step.
That's Lindows.
(BTFW: the screenshots *are* faked - they show the GOAL of Lindows.. not what they have today - how is that so hard to understand? Do i have to draw a picture for you? Oh.. i guess it needs subtitles too.)
This thing is going to be a great stepping stone to get people to migrate off windows, and will set up LOD when the required apps - SunOffice 6.0, OpenOffice, etc - get made.
You have to move people gradually - they don't take well to violent shocks - that's how people made it from Windows 3.1 to XP - even though the OSes are NOTHING alike - the gradual change, plus enough backward compatibity got Microsoft to where they are now.
MS did DOS -> Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> XP
Apple did 680x0 -> PPC, and they did it again with Mac OS -> Mac OS X.
Lindows is going to try to do Windows -> Linux + WINE (done right) -> Linux.
Its an idea who's time is come.
Mister Robertson (Score:1, Insightful)
Very few people are going to believe your company has a real product until you make a beta available. Screenshots are nice, but they say nothing of the performance of these applications under Linux, assuming they are even real and not Photoshopped-up.
Also, taking on Microsoft directly is silly. I'm no Microsoft supporter, and I don't think 'Windows' should be trademarkable, but the fact is that it IS a Microsoft trademark as upheld several times by the courts and calling your product Lindows is clearly exactly the sort of close-enough-to-confuse-but-not-exact naming issue that trademark law was created to avoid. You will lose in any legal action against Microsoft and the best move for your company would be to rename the product now before it is too late. If your product is real, and the audience is the audience you mentioned in your mail to Bill Gates (the Linuxy, Slashdotty crowd), we'll all hear about the rename right here on Slashdot, I'm sure; so while you'll lose some amount of branding (and I honestly believe the amount of branding you have so far is a clear indication of your trademark violation and riding on the name of Windows, since you have no product shipping anyone can run to link mentally with 'Lindows'), it would be better for you to do this in the long run.
The longer you don't take REAL action to resolve the legal matters, the more your project looks like a sad attempt to gain attention and less like a serious product that will someday be available.
I speak only for myself.
Re:I doubt this is windows in disguise (Score:2, Insightful)
Case 4a) Lindows is Linux running Wine (which doesn't belong to CodeWeaver!) with additional patches and fixes to improve its compatibility.
As Wine is open source, and, as you say, took several years to get there, why not just fix it up some more? Wine is open source under a BSD-style license, so there's no reason for them not to adapt it (as it's perfectly legal and ethical to use it in a closed-source product)?
Whatever you think of mp3.com, the person who created it certainly has a reasonable bit of money to throw at something, and it seems to me that this kind of rolls up into the anti-authoritarianness of the mp3.com idea.
Even if you consider mp3.com lame, they did produ ce something real.
Getting sued by Microsoft (particularly over something as easily fixable as a trademark violation) is good for them. They get free publicity by being sued, let Microsoft threaten them for a few months, and then settle, getting free publicity again (and perhaps a few reporters who will give them a review when they release a 1.0 version).
The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
***THE POINT***
"My office runs outlook and IE, and I need to keep my palm in synch. But I've heard good things about that Linux operating system."
"Children need to explore the world of computing. While they've convinced me to switch from AOL to Earthlink, I don't think I could live without my copy of outlook."
"We've spent hundreds of dollars on software already, so while I hate Microsoft I guess I'm stuck using them."
They're NOT trying to get you to switch to Windows (though I wouldn't mind getting Dreamweaver to work. [ducks]). They're not here to fake screenshots. They're not trying to destroy all that makes Open Source good by commingling it with Windows. They're opening a migration path. If you have one app that you desperately need that only runs under windows, but you prefer or want to experiment with another operating system, you can. Connectix has been doing it for years with the Virtual PC for the Macintosh, and this is basically just a more integrated version of that (and one where Microsoft doesn't recieve unnecessary royalties). This is not going to take over the world, destroy linux or windows, but fill a necessary niche.
Good luck Lindows team, you have my support.
-Chris
Re:I doubt this is windows in disguise (Score:5, Insightful)
Case 4 is correct. They've taken WINE and improved it a bit without releasing changes back to the community. I'm not even sure WINE will get much recognition out of it. This has caused some people to push for future releases of WINE under the LGPL instead of the current BSD-like liscence.
WINE had been getting along pretty well. Let's hope MS doesn't return to the old "The Job's not through 'til it doesn't run on OS/2!" days.
Re:Why LindowsOS will inevitably fail... (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I checked the only Microsoft (retail not OEM) OS you could find for $99 or less was a '98 or ME. W2K still cost us integrators well over $200 a pop (for lots of less than 10).
That means that I can reduce the price of my integration units by over $100 (or more likely increase my profit by over $100) and I can take advantage of the reliability of the Linux kernel (applications, security, etc) with out some floor manager who thinks he/she is a sysadmin complaining because they can not run their Access reports.
The Linux movement needs marketing. Lindows seems to be doing that. If they fail maybe they will open a few more peoples eyes to what most of us allready know: There are choices in OS's for everyone.
The point is most Windows users will not boot to Linux. LindowsOS _may_ provide Linux inclined IT personnel and integrators a means of breaking Linux out of the server only role.
I can even imagine me having a conversation with one of my customers. "If we install Lindows it will chop $50 of per box, allow us to maintain the use of your legacy system as we transition to a stable Linux solution. This could lower the TCO by ensuring that no third party (Microsoft) can charge for the dependencies
Why Lindows Might Work (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I haven't seen enough of Lindows to figure out whether they have anything, I certainly think this kind of project is feasible. Most people would say "Why not just use a normal distro and Wine?" Why? One reason: Tivo.
Tivo takes the base operating system and customizes it to suit one goal: being a PVR. I can barely get my Linux box to play VCDs reliably, and I consider myself a power user. However, Tivo gets to cut away all the cruft and options until they're left with a base system optimized for video recording and playback. The pieces are all solid, so they can make something fairly bulletproof in a short time.
So, if the stated goal of Lindows is narrow enough, it might work. Dvorak thinks that the goal should be to run Office, and I agree. Most Windows users I know run Office, AOL, and little else. For business applications, they don't even need AOL. (Well, they don't need it anyway, but you know what I mean.)
A cheap, pre-configured system that runs Office would be a market hit. Other applications could be "unsupported" without alienating many customers. Support a few popular Windows games later and you gain another market as well.
Like I said, who knows if they actually plan this. It certainly is a possibility, though.
~chris
a still confused lawyer (Score:3, Insightful)
I can certainly see how "Lindows" would clearly infringe on a trademark of "Windows." But my recollection, from several years ago, was that microsoft was quite clear that the claimed trademark was for "Microsoft Windows," not "Windows," both because a simple windows trademark would have infringed on others, and because it was a term already in common usage for, uhhh, windowing on a microcomputer screen.
So I remain baffled as to what trademark is at issue--I see no chance that someone confuses "Lindows" and "Microsoft Windows"--unless someone is claiming that "Windows" is not common usage, which would undermine the trademark anyway . . .
hawk
Re:Still sounds like a hoax. (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows ain't even 99.9% compatible with Windows.
98.9% MABYE. On a good day. A really good day.
Some programs designed for DirectX 3 crash under DirectX 6/7/8/whatevermicrosoftshovedontheharddrivelast.
Odd glitchs happen all the time. For awhile my Win2k box insisted on just 'kinda' obeying the control-c and control-v commands. (Copy and Paste). Control-X worked most of the time, but not always. Oh joy.
I have seen machines try to 'finish installing office' when you try and open a GIF file. Talk about odd.
Re:Not a hoax... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point you and many other seem to be missing by pointing out that it's a KDE desktop is that KDE is a windows manager for X. If this thing is linux like, maybe you have a CHOICE about which window manager you use?
What really needs to be focused on here is if lindows actually has a awesome windows compatibility layer for X. Not what WM it uses.
Re:Why Lindows Might Work (Score:2, Insightful)
You still have to implement all the features of competing systems to be successful.
Re:Not a hoax... (Score:2, Insightful)
What I am more inclined to believe is that Lindows is the first real linux distro for the stanard windows user that really doesn't want to customize anything more than their desktop background and colors. This is for people who want to use Word, Outlook Express, and AOL. While it may not be something we want, it's definitely a good idea should it work since it has the potential to migrate most of the windows power users away from Microsoft to linux. Once they are weened off of their applications and install open source ones, hopefully they will then pick a real distro.
Re:a still confused lawyer (Score:3, Insightful)
my recollection, from several years ago, was that microsoft was quite clear that the claimed trademark was for "Microsoft Windows," not "Windows," both because a simple windows trademark would have infringed on others,
Isn't the standard whether there would be a reasonable degree of market confusion? By your logic here, I could market my operating system as "Nerdsoft Windows(c)" and be in the clear. I think most would agree that it would be confusing to have 20 different operating systems on the store shelf called "Windows".
Re:What a bunch of crap (Score:3, Insightful)
It is obvious that the name makes a reference to Microsoft Windows. But that's not a violation of trademark; nor is being "a rip-off" enough to violate a trademark. It's only a violation if the name is likely to confuse anybody, which, clearly, it is not.
The name is meant to convey that the product is a combination of LINux and wINDOWS, which, indeed, it is (functionality-wise). Just like copyright does not prevent someone from copying a CD, trademark does not prevent someone from basing a name or a logo on another company's name or logo. Instead, copyright prevents someone from *distributing* that copied CD, and trademark prevents someone from choosing a name or logo so similar as to invite *confusion*.
The fact that people confuse such issues is a result of the fact that people think the rights due to the "owner" of Intellectual "Property" are at all akin to the rights due to the owner of real property, which they are not. In fact, it's too bad that the term "property" isn't trademarked, because it could sue "Intellectual Property" for definition-infringement and win!
Re:Mirror (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like Photoshop action to me.