Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

LindowsOS Will Bundle AOL Client 181

Posted by timothy from the not-a-small-number dept.
ealar dlanvuli writes "BuisnessWeek Online is reporting that AOL/TW and Lindows have decided to work together in bundling a version of Netscape 7 with future Lindows products. One wonders if they should instead be supporting OEone and making it scream."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LindowsOS Will Bundle AOL Client More

LindowsOS Will Bundle AOL Client

Comments Filter:

  • Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by krmt ( 91422 ) <therefrmhere@yah o o . com> on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @06:20AM (#4326120) Homepage
    Man, what a piss-poor headline. I was actually excited for a second, hoping that there really would be a client for AOL *the service* bundled with Lindows. But no... it's just Netscape 7, which isn't any more functionally than Mozilla really (less in some areas).

    I would have personally loved an AOL client on Linux. My family has used AOL for years, both as a primary ISP and a secondary service. I've had the same email account on AOL for years (yes, it's spam-ridden, but a lot of my friends still use it) and it would be nice to be able to access it via some method other than their (once crappy, now much better) webmail interface.

    In addition to that, there's the fact that having AOL for Linux would give it another crucial app for desktop migration. Not that I'd expect it to work nearly as nicely in setting up your internet connection on Linux as it does on Windows or Mac, which is where AOL really shines, but the ability to access their full service would be nice.

    But no. We get Netscape, something the whole of Unix has pretty much outgrown with Konqueror, Opera, Mozilla, and its spinoffs. Too bad, back to waiting.

    • Please enlighten me, I've never been an AOL customer. What is there to the AOL service, aside from the ISP part and AIM? Both of those you should be able to use just fine from you linux box.

      • Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Informative)

        by krmt ( 91422 )
        It's dwindled a lot over the years, especially as a lot of the content has moved on to public webservers. But basically a lot of media companies pay for the privledge to be a part of AOL, and they often provide some content to AOL users that they don't give to the outside world.

        I personally rarely use AOL for anything but email and AIM now that the web has grown so much. The real benefit would be the ability to admin my email account and the like, which I can't do without a real AOL app.

        But I'm a really clued user. There's millions who aren't. A lot of people stay right there within the bounds that AOL sets. It's very organized and fairly well set up. Every portal site you've ever seen is basically a rip off of the AOL model of organizing information for the user, and occasionally personalizing something. It's passe to do that on the web now, but it was once a very nice thing.

        And as for the ISP part, you can't connect to AOL if they're your primary ISP through Linux. They don't use standard ppp or the like, but something proprietary.

    • Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @08:02AM (#4326372)
      Ho hum. Netscape *does* have more functionality in some areas. For starters it ships with an AIM/ICQ client, has a spellchecker, a radio button and ties into Netscape/AOL sites and all the content that brings, not to mention that it has been tested to within an inch of its life. You wouldn't get equivalent stability from Mozilla unless you stuck with the 1.0.x branch. It certainly doesn't have the DOM inspector, JS debugger or Chatzilla, but then most new users wouldn't care about those anyway.


      Now, is links to Netscape/AOL sites functionality? Well not to someone who knows their away around (from using the web already), who knows about Google, DMoz etc. and has no fear. But we're not talking about people like that - this is someone buying a $199 PC from Walmart here! Newbies need guidance, they need form, they need hand holding and services like AOL and Netscape 7.0 provide that. You might not like it but there it is. New users appreciate being immediately able to read news, shop, chat with friends without struggling for hours in frustration to figure it out before giving up. From Lindow's perspective it cuts down on their support calls, and perhaps Walmart will experience fewer returns too. So everyone wins, profit for Lindows & Walmart and a better experience for the user.


      It's no different from learning to swim - you can teach someone in the shallow end with water wings and instruction or throw them into the deep end and walk away. Which approach do you think will be more effective, and which will lead to severe trauma and lots of dead bodies?

      • I agree with you on the user front. I was trying to explane to my mother that I had my new site up, bhsx.yi.org [yi.org], and she kept telling me she couldn't get to it. Now this is a woman who ran the offices for Consumer's Digest Magazine (failed .com and all) for 16 or so years, she's a woman who used to pass around WordStar pirate discs, when WordStar cost something like $550/seat. So I thought maybe I screwed the DNS pooch, somehow. But after logging into a remote server and using links, I realized she didn't really know what she was doing. She was running win98/IE and somehow couldn't get to my site. So one day I decided that she should show me what she was doing when trying to reach it. She went right for the "Yahoo Search" form that yahoo embedded into her IE. I tried to correct her, and said "No, no, the URL field... the bar at the top." So she clicks the Search form on Excite (she was checking her mail... I can't believe she still uses Excite/SpamHaven, but I degress). So at this point I point to the URL bar, and she understands. So what does she do?

        She starts typing in www.bhsx.yi.org....

        True Story, just happenned last week.
      • The point the origional poster was trying to make is that this is not an AOL client .

        OK, great, Netscape 7 has stuff Mozilla doesn't, and some of that stuff is related to AOL. Whoop-a-dee-doo! You still can't connect to AOL as your primary ISP. You still can't admin your AOL email account. You still can't access the special AOL-only content.

        This is not adding AOL support to Linux, which while I personally wouldn't care, it would at least be newsworthy. This is just a distro shipping with the latest version of Netscape, which is, quite frankly, about as newsworthy as "RMS puts his pants on one leg at a time".

    • I'm tired of all the Netscape-bashing. AOL has spent a lot of money developing Mozilla -- true, there's some amount of outside development, but the bulk of it has been funded by AOL for use in their Netscape product. The least you can do is lend a few kind words. Personally, I use the Netscape-branded browser (Netscape 7 is a very good browser on all three platforms) and I use their portal site. You should, too. All of this stupid Slashdot groupthink of "Mozilla good, Netscape bad!" completely ignores the fact that if there were no Netscape, there would be no Mozilla. Or the more likely scenario -- if AOL hadn't acquired Netscape, Netscape might have gone out of business without the backing of a big tech player, and most of you would be using Mozilla 0.2 right now.

      Give Netscape some credit, folks. They're trying to be a good open source citizen. Don't disappoint them with a childish "take take take" attitude.
      • As long as Mozilla is truly Free Software, then good for Netscape. Thank you Netscape and AOL-- Mozilla and its derivatives are great browsers and I will gladly contribute money to further their development (especially a gtk2/Gnome2 version). But I have no intention of giving up my freedom for the sake of convenience or to show my gratitude, that would defeat the whole purpose of being excited about Mozilla in the first place.
  • The first step in AOL's master plan to reap revenge on microsoft for the windows XP experience?

  • So do we cry or cheer? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Huw ( 234808 )
    Whilst the die hard Linjx crowd may be crying into their keyboards at the moment, it'll be interesting to see if a move like this will make Linux more accessable to Joe public.

    If this sort of thing could be combined with the Linux PCs being sold at Walmart stores in the States then who knows, might just be the push that Linux needs to get itself a wider home market.

  • Good Entry Point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by e8johan ( 605347 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @06:22AM (#4326128) Homepage Journal
    This is a good point to insert Linux onto the desktop of average Joe. Despite Lindows licensing tricks they open a door for open source software.

    As Windows licenses are expensive it would be nice to see for example Dell to supply computers pre-installed with Lindows. This would still let the average user to use Excel, Word, etc. But allows easy installation and adoption of applications such as KOffice, Gimp etc.

    Today it is hard to get a Windows computer to run *nix (open source) apps in a native looking way, but this could change all that.

  • LindowsOS is dying (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: LindowsOS is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered LindowsOS community when IDC confirmed that LindowsOS market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that LindowsOS has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. LindowsOS is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict LindowsOS's future. The hand writing is on the wall: LindowsOS faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for LindowsOS because LindowsOS is dying. Things are looking very bad for LindowsOS. As many of us are already aware, LindowsOS continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    LindowsOS is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time LindowsOS developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: LindowsOS is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenLindowsOS leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenLindowsOS. How many users of NetLindowsOS are there? Let's see. The number of OpenLindowsOS versus NetLindowsOS posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetLindowsOS users. LindowsOS/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetLindowsOS posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of LindowsOS/OS. A recent article put FreeLindowsOS at about 80 percent of the LindowsOS market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeLindowsOS users. This is consistent with the number of FreeLindowsOS Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeLindowsOS went out of business and was taken over by LindowsOSI who sell another troubled OS. Now LindowsOSI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that LindowsOS has steadily declined in market share. LindowsOS is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If LindowsOS is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. LindowsOS continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, LindowsOS is dead.

    Fact: LindowsOS is dying
  • ... why they put in Netscape 7 instead of Mozilla 1.1? Why this sudden interest in AOL products?
    • Because AOL will buy the Lindows company ?
    • Last time I checked (hmm, about 30 minutes ago) Netscape 7.0 has nearly all the functionality of Mozilla, as well as being able to configure cookies based on privacy settings, and it's been much further tested, optomized, and debugged than Mozilla.

      So, if you want to block images frm 3rd party servers, from specific servers, or block JUST the unwanted popups (you can block js popups), then you have to stick with Mozilla. If you are willing to give up those things, and would possibly also like to have much finer control over cookies (based on a sites privacy settings), then go for Netscape 7.
      • Also, I have a feeling Netscape 7 lacks the new features and bug fixes of Mozilla 1.1 since it's using 1.0.1 as base.

        The cookie settings in Mozilla is good enough for me and I really like both the adblocking features of Mozilla and the abscence of AOL so I think I've made up my mind.
        • I have yet to see a single Mozilla 1.2 feature that Netscape 7 doesn't have.

          However, I can't speak for bug fixes.

          and I really like both the adblocking features of Mozilla and the abscence of AOL

          Well, I do my adblocking through Privoxy, which gives me much finer-grainded control (I did a lot of configuration one, and it's been months of surfing various sites since I've seen an ad... Oh the powers of pattern, rather than just URLS).

          And AOL? Come on! After disabling all the crap on the personal toolbar (e.g. Shop, Search, keywords), I can't remember seeing a single ad in Netscape 7.

          Anyhow, just throwing the info out there... Use whatever you like.
          • I have yet to see a single Mozilla 1.2 feature that Netscape 7 doesn't have.

            Type Ahead Find?
            More shortcut keys?
            Attaching multiple messages to e-mails?
            Improved XML support?
            A rather serious e-mail [mozilla.org] bug?

            Just naming a few from the 1.2 release notes.
            Perhaps some changes was introduced prematurely in Netscape 7, but I doubt all of them were.

            This is also from 1.2. I'm not sure if Netscape 7 even has all the 1.1 improvements since it was, after all, based on 1.0.1.
            • That is a weak list of improvements. More shortcut keys I won't call a feature, an I'd bet you won't even notice if they aren't there. Improved XML support means you click one less button. And I didn't even attempt to account for bugs.

              I can't speak for TypeAhead Find, since I did not even install that, so I don't even know what it is.

              Yes, you are able to copy/paste. It takes quite a bit more work than that though.
              • That is a weak list of improvements.

                ... according to you.

                More shortcut keys I won't call a feature

                So you actually use the mouse to use software quickly? I'd call more/better shortcuts a feature that allows you to use the software more efficiently.

                Improved XML support means you click one less button

                ??? I'm talking about the improved XML visualization a la Internet Explorer.

                I can't speak for TypeAhead Find, since I did not even install that, so I don't even know what it is.

                You should -- it's an innovative (and unique) feature allowing you to navigate through the links in a web page more quickly. Some think of it as the major new feature in 1.2.
                • you actually use the mouse to use software quickly?

                  No. I said that, because all the common actions already have adequate shortcuts. Just because now you can hit a couple keys to open the js debugger, and things like that, it's not a major feature.

                  improved XML visualization a la Internet Explorer.

                  Yup. Improved visualization for those pages that are pure XML AND do NOT have a style sheet. This is so you don't have to 'view source' to see it in this format. A trivial feature.

                  Some think of it as the major new feature in 1.2.

                  Hey, I'm not the one telling them to incriment version numbers for every single little feature... That said, I'll take a look at it sometime
  • AOL = America On Linux?

  • Stop Press: AOL Claims Netscape 7 Use Icons (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @06:53AM (#4326199) Journal
    Look:

    With its AOL licensing deal, the Lindows said that consumers can enjoy the versatility of Netscape browser and communications capabilities right out-of-the-box with an icon-driven interface.

    Whoa - icons! Let me get this straight... Are they saying they'll use those new, often abstract, graphic representations of commands you give to the computer? This, my friends, seem to be a browser for the 21st century. Let's all embrace Netscape 7 in all its glory.

  • Nice! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by miffo.swe ( 547642 ) <daniel@hedblom.gmail@com> on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @06:53AM (#4326200) Homepage Journal
    Its nice that more userfriendly alternatives comes out on linux. If AOL supports linux it will mean that more users will have the ability to try it out. Surely not all will stay but some like me will quickly fall madly inlove.

    An interface like AOL makes lindows idiot friendly. Many of you 373343 hAxx0r5 may find that disturbing but i like the spinoffs it makes. More users means more people bugging hardware manufacturers to release drivers for consumer products etc.

    I think its high time we stop snearing at newbs and people that just want to use the box, not administer it. Compare to autos and the development from daily self service from the beginning to almost no service today. It is inevitable that things is done by automation in the future. Who wants to work on their car every day just to drive to work?

    Just like with cars self service of computers will become a hobby someday.

    • Its nice that more userfriendly alternatives comes out on linux. If AOL supports linux it will mean that more users will have the ability to try it out.

      Why?

      Would including Mozilla stop them from trying it out? How is Mozilla harder to use than IE?

      An interface like AOL makes lindows idiot friendly. Many of you 373343 hAxx0r5 may find that disturbing but i like the spinoffs it makes.

      The browsers of the current major Linux distributions are easy to use. The Lynx days are fortunately days of the past. You can make Mozilla identical to IE with a simple reskin.

      I still fail to understand how AOL would automatically make a Linux distribution easy to use, where no involvement with AOL would make it mostly just useful for "l33t h4x0rz".

      • Re:Nice! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by miffo.swe ( 547642 )
        I didnt mean that this is the mother of all usability. What i meant was the more alternatives the bigger chance of someone hitting the spot.

        The world is full of greyscales not black and white.

        "I still fail to understand how AOL would automatically make a Linux distribution easy to use, where no involvement with AOL would make it mostly just useful for "l33t h4x0rz""

        I complained about how some of us that have used linux a longer period sometimes snear at the average user. I can manage linux quite well but thats because i love it and have the incentive to mock around with settings. For someone that wants a clean tool it can sometimes be a little to complicated and if someone caters that need it will benefit us all in the long run.

        An AOL client would make the transition for those used to it much esier on linux. As for mozilla its a developers version and that shows whenever you want to install a new plugin or java. Netscape is more targeted at the normal user of windows and not the normal user of linux. The normal user of windows is what this would target.
        • The world is full of greyscales not black and white.

          Heh... I didn't sound like that from the statement: "An interface like AOL makes lindows idiot friendly". Period. Sounded pretty definite to me, but I get your point now. :)

      • Re:Nice! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rseuhs ( 322520 )
        I still fail to understand how AOL would automatically make a Linux distribution easy to use, where no involvement with AOL would make it mostly just useful for "l33t h4x0rz".

        It's all marketing. AOL has like Apple a great marketing department, anything AOL or Apple does will be called easy to use while the same features will be called "only for geeks" when some normal distribution offers them.

      • Would including Mozilla stop them from trying it out?

        Including Mozilla 1.1 but not the AOL dialer would not allow users who pay AOL to give them access the Internet. AOL uses a proprietary protocol to dial the Internet, not standard PPP. Linux distributions support only standard PPP out of the box.

  • All this Lindows hype - What about Mandrake ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bushboy ( 112290 ) <lttc@lefthandedmonkeys.org> on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @06:54AM (#4326203) Homepage
    It seems Mandrake always gets left out in the cold when it comes to hyping a "Linux for the masses" desktop solution.

    Mandrake is perfectly positioned to fill all the needs of a home Linux user, from the beginner right through to the advanced user.

    As for AOL teaming up with Lindows - all that is mentioned in the article is Netscape 7.0 being 'integrated' with Lindows.
    In short, all this means right now is that Lindows will use Netscape as it's primary web browser.

    The whole thing is just one ugly "Lets get on the Linux bandwagon to screw Microsoft" marketing stunt.

    The last thing Linux needs is meddling and interference by AOL/Time Warner - can you just imagine. If they adopt Linux in a big way, in a few years, they'll be claiming they invented it and will add tons of proprietary closed source bunk.
    • Although Mandrake is personally my favorite distro, and it what i'm using even as i write this, it's still not streamlined enough for the type of user Lindows is targeting. When i go into the "Terminals" submenu, i find that there are six different terminal programs. There are also six text editors. Five browsers. Configuration tools are still redundant and confusing. How does the user know what the difference between "Userdrake", "KUser", and "User Manager"? This plethora of choices may be great for a power user, but it's just confusing for the market that Lindows is going after. This is why Xandros, Lycoris, and Lindows exist.

  • You've got r00t! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cscx ( 541332 )
    Doesn't LindowsOS constantly run as the 'root' user?
  • Wow, Lindows in bundling Netscape 7. Timothy can you even read? Jesus dude, it says in the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE "Lindows, Netscape team up". Linux finally gets AIM and AOL Mail. Is that what you consider an AOL client? So, GAIM and Opera both able to access such systems are AOL clients? Color me frickin suprised.

    This isn't some genius marketing move that will sway the unwashed masses to Linux either. It is Netscape, not AOL 7.0, AOLites who were born and raised on AOL know AOL for being AOL they care little about some program called Netscape "does that have the internet on it? AOL comes with the internet so I use it". This is news for people who don't read good or at all, not geeks...wait this is slashdot. Nevermind.

    • Re:Inspector Gadget was here (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Um, actually that comment was in italics, meaning that the poster said it, not timothy. Timothy didn't even comment on this article. Yeah, the editors are usually at fault for stupidity like this, but not this time.
  • Can someone please tell me how much money oeone payed slashdot for all the publicity?

    Maybe it is just me but slashdot seems to be saying an awfull lot of positive things about it even when the artical has nothing to do with it and shouldn't mention it at all.

  • "One wonders if they should instead be supporting OEone and making it scream."


    (shakes head in disbelief)

    Lindows isn't for Linux users, Timothy. It's for people accustomed to Windows who might want a choice. It's for people who aren't really hard-core computer users but want a bit of choice in their computer purchasing. Putting an obscure (relative to Windows) front end on Linux will not accomplish that. For Lindows to work it has to, for the most part, behave like Windows.

    OEone is interesting, just like any random Linux distribution is interesting. That doesn't mean that they're easily understood by the masses of the computer users who get their boxes from Dell and/or Best Buy, etc...
    • Do you actually have any idea at all about what OEone is building? It's not just some light shell slapped over a command line. It's an entire integrated operating environment designed from the ground up to be usable and understandable by the very masses who do buy their boxes from Dell and/or Best Buy. In fact it's also intended for the huge mass of people who haven't bought a computer at all because they find them to difficult to use.

      AOL should be climbing all over OEone. It's the perfect vehicle for providing easy computer/internet access to the majority of people out there who still think Windows is to hard to use.
      • OEone might turn out to be the slickest piece of software ever written, but that won't sell it.

        The biggest mistake /. readers and many Linux supporters make is assuming everyone else shares their enthusiasm for change. They don't. People want to stay with the comfortable and familiar. The discomfort of learning new ways to do old things mitigates against widespread adoption of new software.

        I hope OEone is compelling enough to counter that inertia. Linux needs it.
    • Quarters,

      Timothy didn't write that - look at the FAQ. The stuff in italics is the reader submission.
    • > OEone is interesting, just like any random Linux distribution is interesting.
      > That doesn't mean that they're easily understood by the masses of the computer
      > users who get their boxes from Dell and/or Best Buy, etc...

      (shakes head in disbelief)

      This is completely wrong. OEone's HomeBase is emphatically NOT like any other Linux distro at all. Lindows is far more like any mainline distro than HomeBase. HomeBase is truely something new and different. It's not intended as a normal desktop computer but as a home system for non-techies. You will see more on this in the not to disant future.

      Bleieve me, if you actually give HomeBase a try you will be amazed.

      • HomeBase is truely something new and different.


        Which is exactly the point I was making against it for casual users. Lindows is positioning it's OS offering as a way for Windows users to leave Windows for something else. It looks like Windows, acts like Windows, and runs certain Windows applications just so the user will have an easy and comfortable time making that transition.

        Making someone use a new UI is *not* the way to get a casual user to switch. Most people are afraid of their Windows boxes. To try something completely different in an OS and a user experience isn't anything they would want to willingly do. Lindows understands this. OEone, for all it is, is not the way to get Windows users to switch to Linux. It's too different.

        If casual users willing to leave Windows wanted a UI that was "truely somthing new and different" they would've come to Linux w/KDE or Linux/GNOME long ago.
  • "One wonders if they should instead be supporting OEone and making it scream"

    Absolutely not... I think you'll find the hint is in the name LINDOWSos - ie. it's meant to be like Windows, for people who are kind of familiar with Windows, who sort of want to be compatible with Windows but don't want to pay for Windows...

    In terms of acceptance, it is important for Linux that someone provides that - although there is always Lycoris (who arguably do it better as well!)....

    OEone is an interesting concept, and it would be great for someone to pick it up and run with it, but I don't think that should be Lindows...

  • new AOL commercials on CNN (Score:4, Funny)

    by theflea ( 585612 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @08:49AM (#4326523)
    Will the AOL commercials on CNN change significantly? Old commercial: grandma type says "it's like having a verbal chat [twiddles fingers]...electronically!" New commercial: father type says something like: "AOL uses ipchains/procmail filter/ext2 file system/gecko rendering engine....and that's important to me"

  • Slashdot, you're killing me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sethadam1 ( 530629 ) <ascheinberg&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @09:07AM (#4326610) Homepage
    I can't believe the growing ridiculousness of this website.

    First off, what terrible research. You should have linked to the actual website [lindows.com], where'd you see that there actually is AOL for Linux [lindows.com] coming our way.

    Secondly, rather than let the uncompromising, closed-minded crowd continue to hate LindowsOS because it appears to be stylish amongst the l33t, you should have posted an actual story (submitted and rejected) that would be truly informational about LindowsOS, like this story [osnews.com].

    This is turning into selective and irresponsible technology reporting.

  • Has anyone actually READ the EULA of OEone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spackler ( 223562 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @09:29AM (#4326718) Journal
    OEOne sounded good, so I figured, what the heck. I cranked up the script in lynx, and let it rip.

    Well, the EULA that pops up makes Microsoft look tame.

    It starts with the usual disclaimer of how they "take no responsibility for the
    consequences of running this script."

    That seemed pretty standard, although worded a little harsh.

    It then goes through some normal install stuff, then comes the fun!

    Issue 1. Your bound by the license of any other software they install, even though you don't see them.

    Issue 2. Any software, or plugins they OEOne installs can ONLY be used while using OEOne's desktop, and can not be called directly.

    Issue 3. Automatic communication. They can do any communication they want to, but you can shut off "MOST" of it in the pref settings. (MOST? Oh, that's nice and gray for a EULA. Stated clearly, it means that you can't shut it _ALL_ off)

    Issue 4. DRM. Yup, it's in there, and they can stick in as much as they want.

    Fortunately, you can hit cancel, and throw it all away. I looks to me like they are trying to complete directly with Microsoft, with restrictions, and control over my machine. I switched to Linux to get away from that crap! Sure, the screenshots looked nice, but I'll never be seeing this on MY machine.

  • So will LindowOS will only work for the first 45 days or 1000 hours??? Just think if now get a cd in the mail that has LindowsOS on it with Aol.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close