Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Review: Lindows 2.0 Dissected 333

Posted by michael from the PEBKAC-errors-very-likely dept.
Bob the Knob writes "Extremetech has done an in-depth review of Lindows. The guy who wrote it didn't think too much of Lindows before looking at it but he seemed to like it after doing a hands-on."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Lindows 2.0 Dissected More

Review: Lindows 2.0 Dissected

Comments Filter:

  • Where's the Code? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by glamslam ( 535995 )
    I support the idea of Lindows and hope Michael is successful... as long as he plays by the rules. So, the question is, Where's the code???

    • Re:Where's the Code? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Taken right from http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_license.ph p

      "Some of the software programs included in LindowsOS are licensed (or sublicensed) to the user under the GNU General Public License and other similar open source license agreements which, among other rights, permit the user to copy, modify and redistribute certain programs, or portions thereof, and have access to the source code. The GNU General Public License (GPL) requires that for any software covered under the GPL which is distributed to someone in an executable binary format, that the source code also be made available to those users. Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account."

      • This could violate the GPL (Score:5, Informative)

        by petard ( 117521 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:39PM (#4387678) Homepage

        Those who have received from Lindows.com the binaries for any GPL'd software can also find the source code available for download in their my.lindows.com account.

        Take the GPL Quiz [gnu.org]. Lindows is required to distribute the source to anyone who has received the binaries and requests the source... not just "those who have received [binaries] from Linxows.com".

        • Really, every thing I've read of the GPL says that you only need to distribute the source to those people you've distributed the binary to. If those people redistribute the binary then they have to make the source available - not people further up the chain.
          • I think a more important point is that it asks that "Lindows Insiders" don't redistribute Lindows as it was given(sold?) to them exclusively. Sounds like a GPL violation to me.
            • Right... don't redistribute Lindows, they don't say, don't take the XFree86 binary we gave you and give it to your friends. They are talking about what makes Lindows, what it is... the customizations and custom software.
            • So let me get this straight...one cannot download Lindows for free? What if I don't want to be an insider or have access to Click-and-Run? I personally don't want to use this software...but would think of recommending it to others if it could be had for free.

              On another note, I just checked buy.com, and they have winXP Home Upgrade for only $96--that is CHEAPER than this. So, why would any run-of-the-mill user (the target audience) buy this software when good old M$FT has cheaper stuff?

              • On another note, I just checked buy.com, and they have winXP Home Upgrade for only $96--that is CHEAPER than this. So, why would any run-of-the-mill user (the target audience) buy this software when good old M$FT has cheaper stuff?

                LOL... and what happens to this $3 cost advantage when you upgrade WinXP on a whole roomful of computers? You can install Lindows on as many machines as you wish...It's LINUX.

                I doubt that they would let you use click-n-run on all of them, though. Such a service is a good example of a business model that could produce some actual profit in the land of GPL.

                It seems that Lindows has the right idea WRT ease of use and the end user. It should be as simple and foolproof as possible to own and use a computer.

                I disagree with the portion of the review that says who gives a crap about Winows apps, though. People want to be able to run their windows apps, and they will not make the switch until they can. Everybody has some special piece of software that they need. It is not just M$ Office. It's the 3D landscape software or SimCity or Quicken that they have been using forever and see no reason to switch. Geeks like to learn new things; most users do not. Lindows seems to understand this implicitly and is making tremendous strides in this arena.
            • I think a more important point is that it asks that "Lindows Insiders" don't redistribute Lindows as it was given(sold?) to them exclusively. Sounds like a GPL violation to me.

              I think you're right.

              From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, Section 2b:

              You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.


              It seems to me that this means that you have to give your work to anyone who wants it if you incorporate GPL'ed code.
          • If those people redistribute the binary then they have to make the source available - not people further up the chain.

            It depends.

            1) If you gave them the source when you gave them the binaries, they have to make the source available, if they distribute it further.

            2) If you do not give them the source along with the binaries, but a note explaining how you guarantee that they can retrieve the source from you, your note has to be valid for all third parties, too.

            3) If you only received a note according to 2) and you do a non-commercial distribution, you may pass along the note in order to comply (this, btw, requires the note to be valid for third parties).

            For completeness, here are the relevant GPL [gnu.org] excerpts:

            regarding 1) above:
            3. You may copy and distribute the Program [...] in [...] executable form [...] provided that you also do one of the following:

            a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, [...]

            regarding 2) above:
            3. b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...]

            regarding 3) above:
            3. c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

        • Well, it does violate the GPL (IANAL), but not for the reasons you specify. In fact, the first question in the GPL quiz says that it's a GPL violation [gnu.org] :
          He can put the source code on his web site, and put the URL on the CD
          This is essentially what Lindows.com is doing. Lindows.com does not have to distribute the source code to anyone who asks (if this was the case, nobody would GPL their software, because the bandwidth charges might kill them). The "written offer" section 3b of the GPL [gnu.org] is a little vague, but IMHO Lindows.com is violating it because their web site is not how they distributed the binaries. They should just put the source on the CD.

          But this does not seem to me to be a terrible GPL violation. I think Lindows.com could very well make the argument that their site is a "a medium customarily used for software interchange" as stated in section 3b of the GPL, and that they are therefore GPL-compliant.

    • ftp://130.94.123.237/

      This link was shown when I signed-in and paid $99 to become a 'Lindows Insider'. (I'm so happy. Actually I see this as a $99 fighting fund contribution. Go Michael, Go!!)

  • What fun is that? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Superfreaker ( 581067 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:23PM (#4387534) Homepage Journal
    >>it hides the usual kernel text junk that appears during boot I thought that was the only reason to use Linux!?

  • XGalaga (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Ctrl-Z ( 28806 )

    There is one comment here that tends to discredit the review: "During testing we installed a silly game called XGalaga...". Since when is XGalaga a silly game? It's one of the finest games available on [GNU/]Linux!

  • 7 min install (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bjschrock ( 557973 ) <bschrock@@@gmail...com> on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:25PM (#4387555)
    I think the most impressive thing I saw in the review is that Lindows installed in about 7 minutes. My old Windows computer used to take about a third of that to boot up...
    • Many distros (like Knoppix, or others which are adaptations of Red Hat or whatever) can run directly from CD. That would beat the seven minutes and also it would at least partly deal with the security concerns from running as root. You just need to use a partition (or 100 megabyte loopback file on the Windows filesystem) for the home directory.

      Ideally, you'd put the CD in and start using the machine, but in the background the CD image would be copied to the hard disk for faster access. On the next boot you can mount the CD image loopback from the HD. And give your Lindows disc to a friend!
    • HITCHHIKER : I'm a salesman. I'm gonna start my own company.
      TED : Really?
      HITCHHIKER : You want in?
      TED : Huh... nah... I'm not, I don't really have any... you know... money... or...
      HITCHHIKER : You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Install?
      TED : Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Install. Yeah, the Lindows software.
      HITCHHIKER : Yeah well, this is gonna blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7...Minute... Install.
      TED : Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.
      HITCHHIKER : Think about it. You walk into a software store, you see 8-Minute Install sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Install right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
      TED : I would go for the 7.
      HITCHHIKER : Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Install. And we guarantee just as good an OS as the 8-minute folk.
      TED : You guarantee it? That's -- how do you do that?
      HITCHHIKER : If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".
      TED : That's right. That's -- that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Install. Then you're in trouble, huh?
      [Hitchhiker convulses]
      HITCHHIKER : No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who installs an OS in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
      TED : That -- good point.
      HITCHHIKER : 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
      TED : Why?
      HITCHHIKER : 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!
      TED : Yeah... You know what? I gotta pee. I'm just gonna pull over.
      HITCHHIKER : Your car seats are making me itchy, man. What are they made out of, cactus? (Ted leaves the car) Only waiting 7 minutes. Total.

  • This is fine for someone with the right hardware.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:27PM (#4387568) Homepage Journal
    but lets see someone pull off a 7 minute install and get a fully working hardware set on a Compaq or god forbid a Gateway...who knows what crap hardware much of Lindows' potential market has.

    • Re:This is fine for someone with the right hardwar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:37PM (#4387660) Homepage Journal
      True. And this is exactly the reason why consumer need to have option of getting Linux pre-installed with, say, Compaq or Gateway... and why Microsoft is fighting that with all of their might, although behind the scenes.

      Installing Windows on crappy h/w is a bit as well, what with trying to hunt down working drivers and all. It's just that with name brands this is already being taken care of.

      • Having spent a few days recently on the phone trying to help the Dell tech support DUDES diagnose a bad ram chip!

        I KNEW it was a bad ram chip, I told the three different people I got handed off to it was a bad ram chip, still had to run through their script of re-installing 2000 4 TIMES before their tech support would allow me to tell them how to diagnose (their "hardware test" app is NOT capable of diagnosing a bad ram chip, BTW) a bad ram chip, and send me the damn thing!

        Grrr. I'm only buying name brands from places like Costco (where I can take it back for a full refund) from now on...

  • Good Review, Seemingly Good Product (Score:5, Interesting)

    by perrin5 ( 38802 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:27PM (#4387569) Homepage
    Although they appear to be saying that the whole "runs windows apps" was a load of crap. Perhaps there's a list somewhere of what windows apps it runs, if any?

    I think the click-and-run feature is a bigger deal than these guys seem to think. They're targeting a market of people who are used to Windows, and many end users don't even understand "shortcuts" let alone icons. Click and Run may sell more copies for Lindows than any other service/review.

    Also, running as root may not be ideal for Linux people, but end-users would just get irritated if they had to enter the root password everytime they wanted to change the system configuration or mount the cd-rom...

    I agree on the firewall, tho. In the interests of protecting everyone, there should be some sort of default "safe" firewall that people can disable...

    just my $.02 (a review of a review, what comes next?)

    • Re:Good Review, Seemingly Good Product (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Götz ( 18854 ) <[waschk] [at] [gmx.net]> on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:31PM (#4387608) Homepage
      You totally miss the point. Running as root is really dangerous. It will enable something like our favourite Windows Security Flaws[TM] on Linux. This will give Linux a bad name.

      To me, this distribution disqualifies itself by that.

    • Also, running as root may not be ideal for Linux people, but end-users would just get irritated if they had to enter the root password everytime they wanted to change the system configuration or mount the cd-rom...

      Well, you can set up the CD rom such that it doesn't need root. As for the other things I don't think its that detrimental to have a password to change system configs. Both XP and OS X do this exact thing. And as others have already pointed out running root opens your system to folks who are going to have a field day on your system. Remmeber, if they're noobies then they aren't going to be reading things like system logs, etc. IMO better to be safe than sorry.
    • You can set up a Linux system so that ordinary users can mount a CD-ROM. If Lindows is already set up to do so much autodetection, presumably it knows how to set permissions on drives so that they can be mounted by users.

      Maybe it's not that easy to convince people that they need to have an additional protection before installing software, but I don't think it's out-of-reach difficult. Pop up a box during installation that explains that you need one password for every-day use, and one password for modifying your base sytem. Have people choose two passwords.

      If people are always running as root, setting up multiple-user systems is going to be a mess, so this also avoids that problem. I think it would be a good investment of effort on Lindows' part.
      • I agree entirely. One note: there isn't really any *inherent* danger in not even having two passwords. This is how OS X works by default - you create an account during the first bootup and the password you enter for that becomes the default sudo/Administrator password - obviously you can change this at a later time if you desire.

        A setup like that is fine, because the user just knows that he has a password for the machine - when the system needs to do something privileged, pop-up a box, ask for the system password, and do your thing.

        A compromise between total security and user-friendliness is a must for Linux on the desktop to succeed. I think a lot of things can be learned from Apple's approach to security with OS X. While it is not perfect, its not too bad, and certainly better than any OS Microsoft has released, with the possible exception of the most recent, XP. Don't know too much about XP yet, so I won't include it in my sweeping judgement!

        Cheers.
    • Also, running as root may not be ideal for Linux people, but end-users would just get irritated if they had to enter the root password everytime they wanted to change the system configuration or mount the cd-rom...

      As someone else mentioned, Mac OS X does this already. If you want to change major settings, you'll have to enter the root password. To me, it's just a small paradigm shift and the end result makes more sense than not having it. It's like having an extra step that asks, "This change is going to affect your computer a lot. Are you sure you really want to do this?"

      • Nope, OS X doesn't ask for the root password, because the root account in OS X is disabled by default. Instead, the user is asked for his/her own password, and the user's account has to be a member of the admin group. It does so via sudo, so if you've used sudo on Linux or BSD or some other system, you already know how it works on OS X.

      • Actually, that might be a better way to go, as far as newbie users are concerned. An applet that pops up and says "Do you want to give this program permission to change your computer? Yes / No", knows what the root password is, and can then su under the covers would mix some security with easy-of-use.
    • If they sold it bundled with Crossover Office then they could back up their claim a bit better.
    • Why should there be a firewall included? Surely the right way to make the system secure is just to make sure it has no vulnerable services installed. I'd imagine that the standard Lindows installation has *nothing* listening on any port - not even ssh - so a firewall would be completely pointless.

      Although their choice of running as root suggests that Lindows don't consider security to be very important, and in that context, a bundled firewall would be a useful marketing tool.

  • Lindows Bashing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xp_fetchbeer ( 599818 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:27PM (#4387579)
    I don't understand why the vast majority of geeks seem to want to downplay Lindows, or just outright trash it. It looks to me like the community should be happy with anything that contributes to the cause, which I had always assumed was presenting a viable alternative to M$. It's almost like someone who resents their favorite obscure band after they become commercially successful. "I was into Linux before Lindows!"

    • Re:Lindows Bashing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jonathan ( 5011 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:34PM (#4387631) Homepage
      No -- It is more that Lindows (even if they stop directly hyping the non-existant Windows compatability) still has a misleading name and is likely to confuse the naive consumer. When these consumers find that their Windows programs don't work, they are likely to assume that it (and Linux in general) is garbage.

    • Re:Lindows Bashing (Score:2, Insightful)

      by debest ( 471937 )
      Add to the above the oft-repeated "run as root" issue. It's not just that the users may find themselves victims of viri-to-come, it also reflects badly on Linux as a whole once this happens. The newbie using Lindows will curse Linux just the same as Windows in this regard.
    • Perhaps not everyone shares your agenda of wanting to produce a viable mass-market alternative to Microsoft Windows.

      The original purpose of Linux, if I understand it properly, was to be an open-source UNIX, not a Windows-replacement.

      So I'd say that the people who bash Lindows because they dislike it as a UNIX are entirely within the "cause."
    • Well, it's not actually a viable alternative to MS, at all. That's my problem with it. Lindows is just like Windows - except that it's not. See, that will always be the problem with ANY of these "let's do everything just like MS" people - in the areas in which they fall short, especially Windows compatibility, they will always appear inferior, period.

      Yes, I know Lindows has various nifty features - but they're selling themselves on their ability to be so much like Windows that people won't be horrified by the complexities of Linux. This is not a good strategy. Why would ANYONE switch to something that's "just like Windows" when they're already using something that "just IS Windows"? It doesn't make sense.

      The features mentioned in the review aren't going to convince anyone either. Because, as I said, they've gone down the path of emulating MS, as soon as they called their distribution "Lindows".
    • Shirley you're not serious.

      :P

  • Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:30PM (#4387594)
    I'm not surprised they like it for the main reason:

    Everything just works

    This is something that seems to often get forgotten within the Linux world. When people complain that something hasn't worked, they tend to get a response like this:

    It's easy to fix. All you need to do is edit...

    And in that split second it strengthens the reasons why people are hesitant to move from comfy Windows land. Editing text files may be easy for you, but for everyone else it doesn't sound like fun.

    Generally whenever I've said something like the above I get bombarded with questions like "why do i need to edit this?", "what happens if i make a mistake?" and invariably "why do I have to edit this in the first place?".

    Hopefully these nice UI touches will make it into other distros. I'm looking forward to the day I can plug my USB MP3 player [frontierlabs.com] in and the OS automatically detects it, mounts it and allows me to use it ... without having to hit the command line.

    Or are there distros like that already?

    • Well RH8.0 has a lot of GUI tools now, so you can set up most services (certainly the ones the "average" user would even consider requiring) with a few mouse clicks. Of course, setting up vhosts in apache is never going to be that easy for a newby no matter how much eye candy they slap on it.

      Until the latest RH distro I'd never even considered using a GUI tool to set up anything - had bad experiences before with linuxconf screwing up my carefully hand-written conf files - and I'll probably still find it quicker to fire up vi than launch X (even if the machine has a keyboard and screen), but for the average office worker, I doubt they'd even need the terminal any more, which is a good thing in my view.
    • Generally whenever I've said something like the above I get bombarded with questions like "why do i need to edit this?", "what happens if i make a mistake?" and invariably "why do I have to edit this in the first place?".

      Yeah, I get those questions too and I've got the answer. Don't cost your friends any services they currently enjoy. Use Linux to give them something better and more than what they have - not to take things away.

      You need to remember why you and your friend would consider going to the trouble of doing anything different in the first place. One of those reasons is that problems in the windows world don't have ANY solution; Not a text file, not a registry edit, not a compile, nothing. There are two ways to fix these problems on a computer that once worked: a four hour windoze rebuild that looses all sorts of personal settings and data or a linux build. You generally have to do both. That's why you are there, right?

      I can't promise everything will work in either world, but I can tell people why: Microsoft has discouraged hardware standards and has made it so every single device needs a unique driver disk. We all have examples of how this works and you can get into the details of things like winmodems, parallel scanners, networkd cards (which do work in the free software world!) and all that if your friend wants it.

      It sucks to lose something, so I always suggest either a dual boot or a second computer for a Linux install. The windows side is always more trouble and your friends learn that in time. In the mean time, they keep using their old devices when they want. Three cheers to the good folks at Lindows if they really have made the M$ chunk redundant, but the root cause of all our problems makes me sceptical.

    • Which is pretty suprising. This is the first Lindows buzz I've heard that wan't primarily negative. The main culprit seems to be Lindows.com management and its missing business ethics filter. Perhaps the company has a first-rate engineering staff that being dragged down by nitwitted suits. Not exactly unprecedented.

      The review is pretty intelligent, but I can't believe the writer is so dense about the economic issues. Maybe most newbies won't understand apt, but a $99 annual Lindows.com subscription is strong motivation to learn. And people who look at $200 computers are not going to buy expensive apps like VMWare if they can avoid it. Perhaps he's gotten too used to getting review products for free.

  • Spotty Perfermance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gurnb ( 80987 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:31PM (#4387605) Homepage


    Although the Click-N-Run Warehouse for Lindows is a great idea in theory, real-world users will run smack into the many ragged edges of open-source software. None of the Click-N-Run applications have been developed by Lindows.com, the creator of the Lindows operating system; the company is merely gathering open-source software from elsewhere on the Web and putting it one place for easy access by LindowsOS users.
    I downloaded several Click-N-Run applications, using my cable modem connected to the Microtel PC through my home network. The downloads were fast and the installation always unfolded smoothly.

    But the applications themselves were a decidedly mixed bag.

    I first tried out GIMP, a photo-editing program that strives to match the popular Adobe Photoshop. GIMP did indeed have many Photoshop features, and even copied the look of many Photoshop icons, but the onscreen instruction manual was spotty. Instead of feature descriptions, many pages only said: "Our apologies. Sorry, but the help page for this item is not yet written.''

    I then installed OpenOffice, the Linux response to Microsoft Office. Again, the look and feel of OpenOffice closely resembled its better known cousin, and the program did succeed in opening Microsoft Word and PowerPoint documents. But OpenOffice didn't include the same fonts as my documents, forcing the program to select alternate fonts that messed up the spacing between words. When I fixed the spacing and re-opened the documents in Word and PowerPoint, the spacing was now messed up by the return to the original font.

    I also tried instant messaging. The first program listed in the instant messaging category of the Click-N-Run Warehouse was Kinkatta Instant Messenger, which claimed compatibility with the very popular America Online Instant Messenger, also known as AIM. But Kinkatta didn't work with my AIM account and I only discovered why in exploring Kinkatta's Web site: a technical change by AOL in February is blocking Kinkatta from communicating with AIM.

    So I had to download the second instant messaging program on the Click-N-Run list, called GAIM, to make the AIM connection.

    • Re:Spotty Perfermance (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:45PM (#4387718) Homepage Journal
      ... But OpenOffice didn't include the same fonts as my documents, forcing the program to select alternate fonts that messed up the spacing between words.
      When I fixed the spacing and re-opened the documents in Word and PowerPoint, the spacing was now messed up by the return to the original font.

      No offense but this is an area where not much more can be done. You are taking in "alien" content, modifying it natively, then once again converting to alien format. These kinds of conversions are lossy by nature, esp. since MS Office formats are proprietary ancient messy "standard" (proprietary although not secret any more). This is especially true with layout related information, as file format doesn't really define how to use information; and also because fonts themselves usually can not be freely shipped. To get truly ubiquitous precise layout, Postscript/PDF should be used. In future hopefully a real office document interchange format emerges; OpenOffice has been active in this area (although it's not likely their XML-based format will become standard, it hopefully leads the way, showing how standard could be defined).

      Unfortunately, for people who have to work with Office docs end-to-end, things will never be very easy unless they stick to using MS Office. But that's only a small part of functionality OpenOffice (and StarOffice providew), and judging the suite solely based on this feature is rather unfair for it.

    • Hmmmmm.... As the author of Kinkatta I am curius to know what the "error" was. That lock out from last February lasted about 2 days.

  • Nice review (Score:4, Funny)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:32PM (#4387620) Homepage
    I thought it was a good review.
    Points out negative aspects, but really shows what Lindows is doing right.

    Despite all the anti Lindows crap going around, take notice of things they do well. Also remember the target audience too, this reviewer did.

    7 Minute install with loads of hardware autodetection? I think that's good, but it isn't exclusive. I tried the gentoo unreal live CD, booted up an I was playing in minutes there too (although my sound didn't work)

  • But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:33PM (#4387623)
    The review seemed to focus primarily on Lindows' ease of installation and use. It mentioned the security concerns (such as no software firewall installed, and how it runs as root by default) but seemed to treat these problems as being outweighed by ease of use. Some might say we already have an OS that focuses primarily on ease of use, and not enough on security issues. Do you know which OS that is? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "Lindows."

  • Lindows and GPL? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gorehog ( 534288 )
    I've been lurking in the Linux community for a while, occasionally getting the wherewithal to try a linux install. I've had some success, my main problem has been the monitor configurations. Apparently, Lindows is making "Linux for Newbs" wich is a great thing. I would hate to throw a stumbling block in their way. Here's the question. Being a linux distro, and therefore under the GPL, doesnt Lindows have a contractual obligation to release their OS as a free download? Is free downloading of distros legally required or is it just customary? Again, hats off to lindows for what they are trying....but what of the GPL?

    • They do not have to supply a freely-available download. The "Free" aspect of Free Software is Free as in "Freedom of speech". They do have to provide the source for any GPL apps that they distribute, and I would assume that it is included on the CD.

  • It is now my desktop of choice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:45PM (#4387721)
    I have been using linux for over 5 years and I admin linux clusters for a living but on my desktop I now use only lindows 2.0 . I do tweek mine to run as a user vs root and I remove the click and run garbage. What is left is a very souped up and productive debian environment. If you need software you will be pleased to find that apt-get is available for your use. Do yourselves a favor and test drive it I think you will come to love it.

  • Root default (Score:2, Informative)

    by buzzdecafe ( 583889 )
    I read somewhere (perhaps Slashdot?) that Lindows runs as root by default. I actually verified this by posting a question on Lindows.com. Here's the question, and the reply I got:

    "I read somewhere that Lindows runs with root access default. Is that true? If so, don't you think that's a dangerous thing to do?"

    "Response (Mark) 10/02/2002 05:55 PM

    "This is true but you do have the option to add users. We are also working on getting the root default removed.

    "The Lindows.com Support Team"

  • Greatest Innovation and Greatest Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by syrupMatt ( 248267 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:50PM (#4387757) Homepage Journal
    IMHO, the greatest feature of Lindows is Click-N-Run. In my experience of introducing users, even fellow geeks, to linux, the #1 barrier of entry was "how do I isntall software x, y, z". Even after explaining red hat's rpm and apt-get (as well as methods via console), they still miss the convienence of just double clicking an installer and having the work done for them.

    However, the prices they are planning on charging for this may prove to be the thing that makes Lindows yet another irrelevant attempt for linux to break into the mainstream desktop market. According to the article IIRC, they are planning on up'ing the price to $130 per year, albeit for seemingly unlimited use. This is going to be a turn off to the Linux/Lindows newbie (and Microsoft convert), who is going to essentially say "i have to pay $130 for just being able to install software easily?!?"
    • The other side of the coin, though, is that Click-N-Run, unlike the similarly priced Windows, actually provides functional applications. This isn't just about installing applications easily, it's about having a bunch of applications available to use. $130 isn't a bad price.

      But all the more reason Lindows won't market to Linux users -- we already know all those applications exist, and we aren't going to pay extra for them. But Windows users don't know that. They won't necessarily consider the situation as free-but-hard, or expensive-but-easy -- and even if they do, isn't that why many haven't switched to Linux earlier?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • The only thing we didn't like about Lindows: it defaulted to 1024 X 768 resolution. we'd prefer 1280 x 1024.

    I thought they were going to say "we'd prefer 800x600". 1280x1024? Give me a break! There's still a lot of people out there with 15" monitors and low quality 17" monitors.
  • The article links to a pcmag.com review of the Microtel $200 PC [walmart.com] that Wal Mart sells (which these guys were going to review, but review Lindows instead). I've been eyeing these for my 2nd grade daughter as a good starter machine. However, the linked review is pretty weak. Has any thorough review been done of this machine?

  • We tried Lindows 2.0 here a while ago (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fudgefactor7 ( 581449 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:54PM (#4387791)
    We were more succcessful than the author as we were actually able to get Office 2000 Small Business Edition to install(!) And everything except Outlook 2000 ran. That was the good news.

    The bad news is that the network support for Novell is non-existant out of the box, which was a bummer. It did however detect all the MS Networking machines without problem. So that was nice. Still, it has a long way to go, and the Click-n-Run subscription model I think will eventually fail. If the price as stated (that it will go to $129/yr) is correct, then what makes this distro any better than Buying a copy of Windows? I call that a failure.

    If I had to give Lindows 2.0 a grade, I'd have to give it a "D", passes, butonly just barely. But that's an improvement as the previous preview version was dismal and got an "F".

  • Lindows now violating GPL (Score:5, Informative)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmail. c o m> on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:55PM (#4387800) Homepage Journal
    I'm a GPL enthusiast, but I see that some people apparently have no idea what it means.

    The GPL does not mean that you as the author of code have to publish your source code and your binaries on the web.

    It means that you have to give your end-users the rights granted under the GPL. When you sell them the CD, you give them all the rights granted under the GPL and put no further restrictions on it. That means that when they buy the CD, they can modify the source code, and redistribute those modifications under the GPL. It also means they can redistribute the source code as is, or that they can even redistribute the binaries. But nothing in the GPL mandates that you need put the source code and the binaries on your website.

    Get a clue, people. I'm referring specifically to a post by "glamslam" called "Where's the code?" Does anyone actually bother to read the GNU GPL or the FSF's FAQ on it anymore? The GNU GPL does not mean that you necessarily will get all of the binaries and the source for free. It doesn't mean the person modifying GPL code has to offer that code on the web. All it means is that they must extend their users the rights granted under the GNU GPL.

    Here's a clue:

    I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?

    No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

    What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.

    The GNU GPL would work in a world without the internet at all. Just because it has become common for developers to post their source code and binaries on the web under the GPL, does not mean that it is ubiquitous or even required by the GPL.

    Indeed, it would be unreasonable of a license to mandate that one post one's source code or binaries on the web, especially when considering the size of today's distributions of GNU/Linux.

    I'm also getting sick of all the Lindows bashing. Its a pretty decent OS. No, you can't download it off the web. Get over it. Its funny how people don't complain that you can't download OSX off the web.

    Lindows is a pretty decent OS. Now, though I wish they'd went with WindowMaker as their default WM -- as WindowMaker is both much cleanier, easier to use, and less resource-demanding than KDE/GNOME -- that's beside the point. They may in the future decide to go with WindowMaker. As this is a distribution for newbies, they might in the future decide to do that. Also, got to admire their excellent choice in a GNU/Linux distribution to base Lindows off of, Debian. Can't get much better than that.

    If you don't want to pay for an GNU/Linux distribution, then get Debian and set it up to be like Lindows. Debian's what I currently use, and there isn't a thing in the world that is going to pull me from it. I might, however, buy this Lindows CD to get some of their nice programs, like the Click-N-Run software. I imagine it'll run on Debian also, and I'd also imagine that anyone with a compatable GNU/Linux distribution could get a subscription to it. Not sure I will at over $100 a year, but there's some nice software here.

    I think that Lindows has a real chance to succeed and actually compete with MS Windows among newbie users, something which other GNU/Linux distributions just can't do. Or if they can, they shoot themselves in the foot. Putting up an ISO of your distribution is not a good business model. In fact, it smacks of the dot.bomb insanity that you can somehow make money by offering to give stuff away and hoping that they'll opt instead to pay for it. Some models like that are viable, like when you want to sell a service, as RedHat does. But unless you want to sell a service, such methods just aren't viable.

    That said, such might be viable for Lindows, as their Click-N-Run seems to be a pretty good service. But there's no need for them to put all their eggs in that basket.

    I suggest that before some more idiots decide to bath Lindows for being in violation of the GPL, they actually take a look at the GNU GPL and its FAQ from the FSF.

    • You said: 'Get a clue, people. I'm referring specifically to a post by "glamslam" called "Where's the code?" Does anyone actually bother to read the GNU GPL or the FSF's FAQ on it anymore? The GNU GPL does not mean that you necessarily will get all of the binaries and the source for free. It doesn't mean the person modifying GPL code has to offer that code on the web. All it means is that they must extend their users the rights granted under the GNU GPL.'

      Are you implying that if you distribute a GPL'd binary to me that you don't need to make the source available? If you read the GPL, you will find the following:

      3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

      * a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

      * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

      * c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
      • Some people are dense. Did you bother to read what I WROTE? I said you don't need to give away the source and binary for free off the web; you just need to extend the end-user the same rights afforded you under the GPL.

        This means that I can REFUSE to offer the binaries or source on the web. I can refuse to give them away for free also. What I can do is -- if I want -- put both the binaries and the source on a CD and charge people for that CD; after they acquire it, they're extended all the rights gauranteed by the GPL.

        Didn't you bother to read the FSF's FAQ, specifically the Q&A that I posted in my message? Apparently not. You're too busy misinterpretting the GPL to mean that people have to give you the binaries and source for zero cost.

        I can make a website like Lindows.com and offer a product based on GPL'ed software, but not put either the source for my modification, the binaries of my modifications, or any source/binaries at ALL on the website, so long as I provide the source with any CD I sell or an offer to produce the source at no more than the cost of distribution. This means I can:

        Make a distribution based off of a largely GPL'ed Debian and not put any of my modifications on the web, but a form to fill out to order a CD. The only thing I can't do is sell them the binaries and then try to sell them the source additionally as another item; the source cannot be priced at more than the cost of distribution. So, what I can do is:

        1. Put the binaries on the CD, including my modifications or additions. Include with the CD and on it an offer to produce the source to anyone who wants it at no more than the cost of production. Any works I make which are derivative works of GPL'ed works must be GPL'ed. Things I come up with independent of GPL'ed code may be licensed however I please; though the proper thing to do is put them under a Free Software license.

        2. Put the binaries on the CD, along with the source code for the binaries and any modifications I made. Again, my derivative works would be covered under the GPL.

        3. Any combination of #1 and #2, provided an offer to produce the source for items where the source is lacking at the cost of distribution.

        Again, I stress that you people should understand that nothing in the GPL forces you to put your source or binaries on the web. It only requires that you give the end-user the ability to access the source with all the rights proscribed by the GPL. The GPL does not mean that you cannot charge for software, or even that you need put anything on the web, free for all to download. Most GPL'ed software happens to be free as in beer, and most of it happens to be available for free download from the web. That does not mean that GPL'ed software MUST be free as in beer and free for download from the web.

        If Lindows has made derivative works of GPL'ed works and hasn't put them under the GPL, then that's a violation of the GPL. But refusing to post the source code on the website for anyone to download or post the binaries on the website or the ISO is NOT a violation of the GPL.

  • hmmm :-/ (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nege ( 263655 )
    The Lindows.Com folks are charging $99 right now for Lindows 2.0 and a two-year subscription to Click-N-Run.

    Why would a "newbie" pay 99$ for Linux when they could purchase Windows XP for the same price? And with Windows XP they know that they will be able to run just about anything they buy off the shelf in terms of software. With Lindows they wont be able to run ANYTHING off the shelf without a hassle, and maybe not even then. While I think that Lindows may be good for someone who wants to ease into Linux, you are not going to be able to actually attack the OS market with a product like this, at that price, at this time.
    • Why would a "newbie" pay 99$ for Linux when they could purchase Windows XP for the same price?
      According to Microsoft's pricing page [microsoft.com], that'd be $199 for Windows XP Home Edition.

      Of course, I don't see how Free Software can mix with $99/year, but maybe that's just me. (I use Gentoo [gentoo.org] instead; very maintainable, blazingly fast, and just as easy to install software. Oh, and it's free.)
    • In theory the buyer is getting a whole store-full of software for that $99, not just the OS, and thus it is a better deal than a Windows upgrade.

      Whether this is true or not is a whole other question, but I believe that is the sales pitch.

  • Apt (Score:2)

    by dr_dank ( 472072 )
    From the article:
    Our hats are off to the Lindows folks for having the guts and smarts to avoid crippling apt in their OS.

    The reviewers use apt to get around paying for that click-n-run feature to d/l and install software. Guts? Maybe. Smart? Nope. Leaving in apt will definitely hurt their subscription revenue.

    Its like going to the movies and being given the choice to pay for a ticket or just walk through the fire exit.
    • Leaving in apt will definitely hurt their subscription revenue.

      Seeing as Lindows target audience is people for whom typing 'ls' is a chore, i highly doubt many of Lindows customers will he hot to switch to apt, that is if they even manage to hear about it the first place...

  • My problem with Lindows Click-n-Run (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joshv ( 13017 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @01:09PM (#4387898)
    It sounds like it is a great service. But is it worth $129 for two years (I know it's only $99 now). Why do I want to pay for what's mostly free and can be downloaded elsehwhere. Sure, it's more convenient and simple to use Click-n-Run, but it's not worth $129, especially when one of the major advantages of Lindows is supposed to be the fact that you avoid the expense of the Windows license.

    Well, it looks to me that Lindows could turn out to be more expensive in the long run than Windows. I've got 5 year old windows installs that still allow me to 'click-n-run' self-installing free/share-ware.

    What happens in Lindows if I discontinue the Click-n-Run service, and my machine crashes? Will Click-n-Run allow me to reinstall the stuff I already purchased? Probably not, because I didn't really purchase the apps, I purchased the service - thus I'd have to pay the Lindows makers all over again to get my apps reinstalled (don't talk to me about backups, the kind of users this distro targets don't make backups).

    To me it seems Lindows is just as greedy as Microsoft, if not more - they are just backloading the expense, instead of charging the user up front.

    -josh
    • If you consider the audience at which the platform is targeted, Click-N-Run makes a lot of sense. Do you really think Grandma is going to go searching through archives and mirror sites to find all the latest upgrades and new software? There are pleanty of new users and users that simply don't care about the technical side of things. Give them a truely point and click install/upgrade process, and they will gladly come back for more (and pay for it.)

      Hell, I would pay for a service like this for my not-so-computer-literate parents just to let them pick and choose what they want. It might eliminate a ton of support calls to me!
    • Read more about it.
      You don't HAVE to buy a Click'n'Run subscription. When you buy Lindows, you get a two-year subscription. Could be argued you don't want it, and should get a cheaper price w/out it...but hey, I don't want WMP with my Windows OS - give me a discounted price! ;-p

      When the two year subscription runs out, don't renew it if you have no problem finding and installing the apps you want.

      Your 5 year old Windows dist. offers 'click-n-run' how, exactly? Windows Update is the closest thing I've seen to that concept. Otherwise, you have to visit various websites, find the dloads, dload, and install. That is not the Click-n-Run concept.

      If you still have a subscription to the Click-n-Run service when your HD crashes, you can dload the same files again - the list is stashed in your user account. If you don't keep up the Click-n-Run subscription, then make backups of the programs you do download. You said not to mention that, but I will, cause this is no much different than any other internet subscription service, eh? If in a Windows environment, a user subscribes to a site to get whatever (mp3's, movies, etc), then lets that subscription lapse, then looses those items - this is different...how?
      KM

      • You don't HAVE to buy a Click'n'Run subscription. When you buy Lindows, you get a two-year subscription. Could be argued you don't want it, and should get a cheaper price w/out it...but hey, I don't want WMP with my Windows OS - give me a discounted price! ;-p

        If you buy the thing preinstalled on a Walmart PC, you only get 10 application installs via click and run - you'd have to subscribe for more. The current stand-alone $99 price comes with 2 years of click-n-run, but this will soon increase to $129 for one year. Not such a great deal...


        Your 5 year old Windows dist. offers 'click-n-run' how, exactly? Windows Update is the closest thing I've seen to that concept. Otherwise, you have to visit various websites, find the dloads, dload, and install. That is not the Click-n-Run concept.

        My point was that after the initial purchase of Windows it is still easy to find and install programs from the vast catalog of free stuff out there, because the relative uniformity of windows installation programs - where it is not so revolutionary to automatically create start menu items and install links on the desktop.


        If you still have a subscription to the Click-n-Run service when your HD crashes, you can dload the same files again - the list is stashed in your user account. If you don't keep up the Click-n-Run subscription, then make backups of the programs you do download.

        How? Grandma just Clicked and Ran. She doesn't know that openoffice is stored in /usr/local/whatever... She just knows there is an icon on the desktop.

        If in a Windows environment, a user subscribes to a site to get whatever (mp3's, movies, etc), then lets that subscription lapse, then looses those items - this is different...how?
        KM

        I wasn't talking about MP3's and movies. I am talking about applications. Typically in windows, if I get an application, I either have it on CD, or download some sort of self-extracting installer. Those are easy to backup (and I do). Windows Updates aren't so simple to backup - but at least I don't have to pay a subscription fee for the service (at least not yet). With Lindows I just click and run. I don't see an installer file that I can backup, and if I lose the installation I must have a paid in full Click-n-Run account to reinstall.
    • I am sure this was mentioned in another thread but a direct price comparision a Click and Run and MS Windows is not possible.

      Windows does NOT come loaded with applications. There are some basic MS plugs to get you hooked on other MS products but nothing more. C&R has many tools that would easily be worth many times over the $129 cost if you bought the Windows only comparables.
      With this comparision, the $129 is a very good deal in terms of overall functionality.
      On the other side though, you could load $YOUR_DISTRO and get almost the same applications for free and install them yourself. Which will the average consumer rather have? I do not know but it appears that Lindows's business model depends on the C&R.

  • Compatibility with M$ is crucial (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @01:14PM (#4387914) Journal
    Lindows should package OpenOffice.org and make it very accessible.
    In-Your-Face compatibility with Microsoft is crucial.
    This is the first question people will ask: "does it do MS Office?"
    and the second will be: "Can I use Outlook?"
    I'm going to download and try Lindows. I can spare 7 minutes.

  • How does Synaptic do? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bsharitt ( 580506 )
    My parets were thinking of getting one of those $199 Lindows machines to replace their 7 year old Windows 95 box. The only problem is that the click and run is $99 a year and subject to go up. If they're so cheap that they still have a pentium 120 with Windows 95, I don't think they'll pay $99-$129 a year for software, especially since most of the software they still use came with the computer or was downloaded for free. While they may eventually figure out how to download stuff for free and install, I don't want them t rely on this sometimes shaky method.

    There best bet would probably be apt-get, and it's not all that hard, but it still may be out of their league. The article mentioned a program called Synaptic, and said it was a GUI front-end to apt-get. While I don't expect it to be as refined as click-n-run, how easily could it be used by rather computer illiterate people(assuming I installed it and set it up for them)?

  • New Lawyers.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tsali ( 594389 )
    double-haiku

    Lindows/GPL
    license text debated like
    dueling bum fighters...

    since when do we need
    to become lawyers for this?
    Don't buy the distro!

    /double-haiku

  • Windows compatibility UNIMPORTANT? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @02:01PM (#4388316) Homepage
    The name of the OS is Lindows. It's aimed at the general consumer. The whole point is that it's supposed to be a viable alternative to a Windows machine.

    The reviewer mentions that not even Office 2000--surely the one application you'd expect to have been tested--will install. "We stuck the Office 2000 CD in our Lindows box. No luck."

    And the reviewer dismisses it lightly: "Windows apps - Who gives a crap? ... "

    Well, the average home user might want to run the Windows software that came bundled with his new digital camera--without which there's no obvious way to print the pictures he took.

    Or the conference proceedings on CD-ROM from that last meeting he attended, that autoboot into navigation/presentation software.

    Or the games and edutainment titles in the electronics section of Wal*Mart.

    The reviewer brushes this aside blandly, "If you want to run Windows apps then just run Windows."

    Right. And if you DON'T want to run Windows applications--then just run Mac OS X.

    The whole Lindows premise seems to be bait and switch: sell the machine by saying it will run Windows programs and hope that the customer can be switched to Linux substitutes before they notice that the pea has been moved to a different shell.

  • AIM (Score:2)

    by IceFox ( 18179 )
    Anyone else find it amusing that they saw AOL Instant Messenger listed in the Click and Run and yet they still took the trouble to go the advanced route of installing gaim from the command line? What is this AIM client? Is is from AOL? Is it from Mozzila? Is it some KDE app renamed? It would have been acceptable if it was part of a screenshot or something, but it was one of the 10 or so Apps they listed.

    -Benjamin Meyer

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close