Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
Lindows says OEMs are responding to "Builder Program"
By on
July 10, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- by Tina Gasperson -
Larry Kettler, the new director of Builder sales at Lindows, says the response to last month's announcement of the Builder Program "has been overwhelming." In an email letter, he says that many OEMs are preparing to launch LindowOS on "a number of computer system SKUs [stockkeeping unit]."
Larry Kettler, the new director of Builder sales at Lindows, says the response to last month's announcement of the Builder Program "has been overwhelming." In an email letter, he says that many OEMs are preparing to launch LindowOS on "a number of computer system SKUs [stockkeeping unit]."
The Builder Program, designed by Michael Robertson's company, Lindows.com, offers original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) a flat fee license to install LindowsOS on new systems. Microsoft charges computer builders a per-system fee.
According to Lindows, OEMs will be able to license the product for a flat monthly fee, installing it on as many or as few systems as desired.
"To join the Lindows.com Builder's Program, and become authorized to license LindowsOS on as many computer systems that you want each month, there is a Membership Fee of $500 US, which includes your first month of licensing. Then, every month thereafter, you will be automatically billed a flat licensing fee of $500 US each month. That's it!"
The Free Software Foundation has been working with LindowsOS to bring it into compliance with the GPL, and has promised the company a rewritten, FSF-acceptable OEM license. The current OEM license states in part:
"Subject to the terms and conditions hereof and only for the term hereof, Lindows.com hereby grants to Licensee a nontransferable limited right and license solely to install the Lindows.com Software Product in executable form on, or bundle the Lindows.com Software Product with, Licensee Product(s) to make Composite Product(s) for distribution and resale only; with exception to Section 19 regarding broader rights granted for certain Software Programs in the Lindows.com Software Product. This license does not allow or authorize Licensee to sell or resell Lindows.com Software Products separate from the Composite Product(s)."
This language seems contradictory to the GPL, however, another section of the license states:
"To the extent the GPL requires that Lindows.com provide rights to use, copy or modify a Software Program that are broader than the rights granted elsewhere in this agreement, then such rights granted shall take precedence over the rights and restrictions set forth in this Agreement."
That clause alone seems to override much of the language in the very proprietary-sounding agreement, with terms like "trade secrets" and "confidential information" and " Licensee shall not: (i) distribute, transfer, loan, rent, or provide access to the Lindows.com Software Product, except as provided herein; or (ii) remove or add any Proprietary Rights notice associated with the Lindows.com Software Product without the express written permission of Lindows.com."
And while the GPL appears to take precedence over the statements that seem to violate it, are the OEMs going to know enough about the GPL to understand which parts of the "Builder Program" agreement they can ignore?
You can view the entire agreement here.
Comments
on Lindows says OEMs are responding to "Builder Program"Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Not all of the software within LindowsOS is GPL'd.
Most of it is, and hopefully if Lindows.com starts working closer with progeny and Debian than Xandros builders will have to worry about licenses for the name and the Click and Run service.
They would be facing some lawsuits if they were to do that - it's not like as if Lindows looks like every other Linux distribution - it would be pretty obvious.
Boy, it sure feels a lot like windows that way!
much worse than in windows, .... you can do so much more things in a GNU/Linux box.
I do not like lindows a single bit, wy windows-lookalike, can't GNU/Linux look like GNU/Linux and nothing else? it't Gnome and KDE's orginal looks ok? .... na, freedom people, and apt-get is the only thing i need...
http://www.debian.org
I do not like lindows a single bit, wy windows-lookalike, can't GNU/Linux look like GNU/Linux and nothing else? it't Gnome and KDE's orginal looks ok? .... na, freedom people, and apt-get is the only thing i need...
http://www.debian.org
So, what does GNU/Linux look like? That's the beauty of the system, it can look like anything, Windows, Mac, or that three day old pizza in your fridge. I agree the Windows look is ugly, but Lindows is shooting for the "we like windows" market. And yes, running as root is extremely stupid, but instead of whining, why not email them and express your concerns. Something might just get done that way.
I did, but they sent a pretty good response
back.. They hit everyone one of my points
perfectly. But I forgot to mention a few things.
So if you send anything out, here is what
they say:
1) The OS can be repaired, user data cannot.
If a virus runs as user and deletes all user
data, the fact that the OS is intact doesn't
matter much. The user will probably reinstall
anyway just to make sure any infections aren't
hidden on the disk.
2) Common, if Linux only had user permits
to secure it, it would be no better than Windows.
It has more security ability than that, and
user permits only protect against specific
types of virii.
#2 is pretty good, but #1 forgets to take
into account something important:
D.O.S attacks, etc.
Linux machines have much more powerful
network abilites than Windows machines.
The network tools are hidden frmo normal
users on normal linux, but with root access
a complex virii can get access to plenty
of powerful tools that can be used to forward
attacks to a bigger target.
---
Someone else send them that, I feel embarrassed
bitching to them about this twice.
back.. They hit everyone one of my points
perfectly. But I forgot to mention a few things.
So if you send anything out, here is what
they say:
1) The OS can be repaired, user data cannot.
If a virus runs as user and deletes all user
data, the fact that the OS is intact doesn't
matter much. The user will probably reinstall
anyway just to make sure any infections aren't
hidden on the disk.
2) Common, if Linux only had user permits
to secure it, it would be no better than Windows.
It has more security ability than that, and
user permits only protect against specific
types of virii.
#2 is pretty good, but #1 forgets to take
into account something important:
D.O.S attacks, etc.
Linux machines have much more powerful
network abilites than Windows machines.
The network tools are hidden frmo normal
users on normal linux, but with root access
a complex virii can get access to plenty
of powerful tools that can be used to forward
attacks to a bigger target.
---
Someone else send them that, I feel embarrassed
bitching to them about this twice.
Actually, I fail to see much of your point. On a single-user machine, it doesn't really matter who you are running as. Simply don't start any extra services (ssh, apache, etc) and have some firewall rules in place and you will be fine. The problem with stupidly configured distributions (e.g. redhat) is that they enable every fricking possible service when installed. If you aren't running services, they can't get exploited. Simple.
Now, there is the possibility that a virus could get introduced through an executable, but then Lindows does everything through click and run, so that won't be an issue.
Now, there is the possibility that a virus could get introduced through an executable, but then Lindows does everything through click and run, so that won't be an issue.
isn't it?
A secure system has multiple components to it. Permissions are one. Running services are another. Strong passwords. Current patches. Backups. Intrusion detection.
Running as root certainly shouldn't be on your checklist of how to secure your system. However, it probably also wouldn't be at the top of my list. Closing unused services would probably be first, followed by ipchains and iptable configurations.
Lets says you're logged in as a user and someone takes control of your unpatched or unprotected system. What do they have access to, /home/you? If you wipe out my data, but don't touch my apache.conf file, am I happy?
Why do they run as root instead of running Click-and-Run in su mode? I honestly don't know.
However, does this necessarily make it less secure that other boxes running Linux? Does it make it less secure than yours? Remember, its a dangerous misconception the Linux is inherently stable. A mistake not likely to be made by a competant admin, but one that is unfortunately made more than I would like to see. Certainly, Linux is immune to Windows viruses. However, viruses are just one of the threats your computer faces.
So get a security checklist together. Make sure unused services are turned off, check your personal firewall configuration, have your external firewall boot from a CD, make sure you aren't using simple passwords, use shadow passwords, get gpgp, backup regularly, get a UPS, check the signatures of packages before you download them and make sure that you get into a habit of regularly updating your system.
Even with the system running as root, given that its immune to viruses, gets all of its software from a trusted location, and has all of its services turned off and its firewall professionally configured, Lindows doesn't rate the F in security as an entry-level, consumer PC that most people are giving it.
Running as root certainly shouldn't be on your checklist of how to secure your system. However, it probably also wouldn't be at the top of my list. Closing unused services would probably be first, followed by ipchains and iptable configurations.
Lets says you're logged in as a user and someone takes control of your unpatched or unprotected system. What do they have access to, /home/you? If you wipe out my data, but don't touch my apache.conf file, am I happy?
Why do they run as root instead of running Click-and-Run in su mode? I honestly don't know.
However, does this necessarily make it less secure that other boxes running Linux? Does it make it less secure than yours? Remember, its a dangerous misconception the Linux is inherently stable. A mistake not likely to be made by a competant admin, but one that is unfortunately made more than I would like to see. Certainly, Linux is immune to Windows viruses. However, viruses are just one of the threats your computer faces.
So get a security checklist together. Make sure unused services are turned off, check your personal firewall configuration, have your external firewall boot from a CD, make sure you aren't using simple passwords, use shadow passwords, get gpgp, backup regularly, get a UPS, check the signatures of packages before you download them and make sure that you get into a habit of regularly updating your system.
Even with the system running as root, given that its immune to viruses, gets all of its software from a trusted location, and has all of its services turned off and its firewall professionally configured, Lindows doesn't rate the F in security as an entry-level, consumer PC that most people are giving it.
when is lindows going to go out of business, so I can be happy and not worry about lindows corrupting the linux world.
What's wrong with a distro aimed at total PC neophites? If it works and Lindows releases what they modify back (which you can DL from their site BTW), what's the problem?
The problem is they are running as root all the time , they are introducing a lot of security holes to linux, imagine running outlook under root. What happens when the system get infected with viruses- that would give linux a bad reputation.
So - rather than encouraging them to educate their users how to create and use their own signon - or better use a non-root userid you'd rather see them go out of business. How pathetic of a mindset - not concerned whether the product may meet the needs of a specific group of users or not - not concerned whether it's a good product or not - not concerned about the livelihood of people - just that somebody disagrees with you on how to implement their product. This sounds extremely vain and petty to me.
The Lindows product is garbage, and Lindows should be put out of business, before they do any more damage to Linux.
Any *more* damage? What damage are they supposed to have done? I've been following Linux for a number of years and have been waiting patiently for a company to finally release an easy to use version for the desktop. Lindows have done that and may well convince me to make the switch from Windows to Linux.
Yes you can log in as root. So what? You can log in as root on any Linux distro. Create new user accounts. That's what Lindows recommends. Go to http://net2.com/askmichael/question9.htm
Yes you can log in as root. So what? You can log in as root on any Linux distro. Create new user accounts. That's what Lindows recommends. Go to http://net2.com/askmichael/question9.htm
Would it give Linux a bad name or Lindows a bad name?
...the many GPL'd apps that they are selling over the net... Customers would feel ripped off if they knew that they need to pay $99 for a subscription to download and install FREE software... I know I would. If there was a way to try it for free, I'd do that, and if I couldn't get it going, I'd THEN want to pay for it. But with Lindows, the customer isn't even informed that they don't HAVE to use Click and Run to get most of, if not all, the software that they want.
Yes, but if by paying a flat fee to click and run all oss added to the click and run db users can avoid the dependency nightmares of rpm/deb/whatever which are commonplace on linux systems, then I think they'd rather do that.
Me too. Click 'n' run gets rid of one of the biggest Linux turn-offs for me. I will be buying it.
When are you going to grow up and start being objective?
When are you going to stop head bobbing and finally deep throat my cock?
Is there any use for an Linux based OS, that can run the Windows Versions of Netscape, or funny neaty Programs like Notepad, or Wordpad? If you canīt get away from M$-Office go over to CrossOverOffice (or simply use StarOffice). Does the world need wide opened Windows in a Linux box? Running root all the time, thatīs not what OPEN source was meant to be ... I need to get some wine now ...
Can any of the Linux's office applications match with MS Office?
Linux's applications are in the Adam & Eve stage. Why both to use them?
Stay with Windows & MS Office. The path to go.
Linux's applications are in the Adam & Eve stage. Why both to use them?
Stay with Windows & MS Office. The path to go.
Who needs lindows?
The answer is: people need lindows. Why? Because they are used to their Microsoft Word-like programs. Lindows is cheaper than windoze and simplier than redhat. There are many people that just don't want to learn using computer back from the beginning. Using Linux is really different from using Windows (and that's why many people switch to linux...). Example: under linux you have to mount a CD whenever you put a new one in you cd drive, under windows - not. People just don't want to waste time for learning how to log as root just to connect to internet using his modem.
That's why people need lindows.
sincerely
Mateusz Borkowski
The answer is: people need lindows. Why? Because they are used to their Microsoft Word-like programs. Lindows is cheaper than windoze and simplier than redhat. There are many people that just don't want to learn using computer back from the beginning. Using Linux is really different from using Windows (and that's why many people switch to linux...). Example: under linux you have to mount a CD whenever you put a new one in you cd drive, under windows - not. People just don't want to waste time for learning how to log as root just to connect to internet using his modem.
That's why people need lindows.
sincerely
Mateusz Borkowski
Wow, I guess you are using Linux from scratch. None of your
two examples are true for RH (neither for Mandrake/SuSe).
You do not have to mount your CD. Just click on the
CD-drive icon on your KDE desktop and it is mounted
automatically (I am sure it works same in Gnome). Also,
you do not have to log in as root to use your modem.
Where on earth did you get this nonsense?
anon reader
two examples are true for RH (neither for Mandrake/SuSe).
You do not have to mount your CD. Just click on the
CD-drive icon on your KDE desktop and it is mounted
automatically (I am sure it works same in Gnome). Also,
you do not have to log in as root to use your modem.
Where on earth did you get this nonsense?
anon reader
psst..... Autofs
I can safely say Lindows is no easier than red hat. The usual flame about running root is true and very dangerous for naive home users. I don't see why lindows doesn't set thing as Suid if root is so important.
Lindows is for losers, wannabes and lowlife scum. So if that's what you want to become, use it.
You Have Been Warned!
You Have Been Warned!
O darn, I seem to have misplaced my flame thrower.
As opposed to the eloquent, mature, sophisticated Linux crowd, as so appropriately demonstrated by the above comment.
Lindows is for people that want to change from a Win(fullofshit)dows enviroment to a semi-Windows enviroment, not so full of shit. Later on they will evolve into full Linux users
What have lindows done over the past year? Nothing spectacular really. Elx and Lycoris have probably done better than them. The only thing that lindows have at the moment is brand name and having to boast winning against MS in court.
What a shame lindows is doing to corrupt the minds of would be adopters of the linux platform, only to discover that there were paying for something that is basically free in the first place.
What a shame lindows is doing to corrupt the minds of would be adopters of the linux platform, only to discover that there were paying for something that is basically free in the first place.
Everyone here seems to be bashing Lindows quite hard,
sometimes the points are justified, but not always..
As I see it, the Good Thing about Lindows is that it is appealing not to
potential Linux users, but potential Windows users.
Getting people off Windows counts for something:
people realise that there is an alternative to the
current MS hegemony.
My take: Windows is like heroin, Lindows is like methadone: slightly better, and a first step in getting off your MS addiction.
sometimes the points are justified, but not always..
As I see it, the Good Thing about Lindows is that it is appealing not to
potential Linux users, but potential Windows users.
Getting people off Windows counts for something:
people realise that there is an alternative to the
current MS hegemony.
My take: Windows is like heroin, Lindows is like methadone: slightly better, and a first step in getting off your MS addiction.
lindows, being shitty and all, will only make wanna be linux users comming from windows want to go back to windows, because of the difficulty to use. From everything i've ever read about lindows; even from people who are trying not to be bias, it occurs to me that lindows will damage linux's reputation more than it will help it.
We must destroy this beast when is only a baby! Dont use Lindows! We have better choice to the open source!
You can grab Lindows ISO off of direct connect? I ran it and I wasn't impressed at all. Seems like a dumber version of Red Hat.
oh well linux in general will be dead soon so enjoy the drama and flaming while you can
oh well linux in general will be dead soon so enjoy the drama and flaming while you can
Lindows is based on Debian. They are licensing Xandros' linux distribution. Xandros bought Corel Linux last year.
It's not a dumber form of Redhat. It is "dumbed up" similar to windows, in that Lindows uses generic names and no command line so people to get confused or freaked out about edit .Xdefaults or whatever.
I commend Lindows and think they're fulfilling a great niche. Robertson is a motivated entrepreneur, and many people seem to resent that.
It's not a dumber form of Redhat. It is "dumbed up" similar to windows, in that Lindows uses generic names and no command line so people to get confused or freaked out about edit .Xdefaults or whatever.
I commend Lindows and think they're fulfilling a great niche. Robertson is a motivated entrepreneur, and many people seem to resent that.
So they are going to comply with the GPL
supposedly. Can we back off with the "Lindows
much die" stuff for a little bit until
they are done negotiating with the FSF?
If they end up going "no way, FSF, we are
pirating your software," than yeah let's
boycott.
BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
They are still "negotiating."
Give them a little time to get a good license
worked out.
As for people who complain it's not for
download, they don't have to offer the
binaries for free. Niether does United Linux.
Thats not a violation of the GPL.
Thats called trying to make a profit.
Redhat can't even break even.
They do have to release source code, but
again let's wait for the FSF before we go
boycott. Richard Stallman is more extreme
than most of us, and if even he isn't ready
to start sueing, maybe they aren't that bad.
So let's relax and wait a little while.
Personally I think very few of you actually
care deeply about the GPL, and most of you
are bitching because they are "dumbing down
Linux." And complaining about that is dumb,
because it doesn't dumb down Linux.
Dumbin down BSD into Macintosh X never made
FreeBSD any less hacker-friendly.
(I'm sure people like Fiztix and whoever else
I can't think of at the moment aren't like
that, but some of you are.)
supposedly. Can we back off with the "Lindows
much die" stuff for a little bit until
they are done negotiating with the FSF?
If they end up going "no way, FSF, we are
pirating your software," than yeah let's
boycott.
BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
They are still "negotiating."
Give them a little time to get a good license
worked out.
As for people who complain it's not for
download, they don't have to offer the
binaries for free. Niether does United Linux.
Thats not a violation of the GPL.
Thats called trying to make a profit.
Redhat can't even break even.
They do have to release source code, but
again let's wait for the FSF before we go
boycott. Richard Stallman is more extreme
than most of us, and if even he isn't ready
to start sueing, maybe they aren't that bad.
So let's relax and wait a little while.
Personally I think very few of you actually
care deeply about the GPL, and most of you
are bitching because they are "dumbing down
Linux." And complaining about that is dumb,
because it doesn't dumb down Linux.
Dumbin down BSD into Macintosh X never made
FreeBSD any less hacker-friendly.
(I'm sure people like Fiztix and whoever else
I can't think of at the moment aren't like
that, but some of you are.)
When you say "THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET" you are dead wrong.
They *HAVE* already violated the GPL.
"Negotiating" to them means paying off judges, and trying to bribe idealists at the FSF.
It also is their only means of buying time.
They *HAVE* already violated the GPL.
"Negotiating" to them means paying off judges, and trying to bribe idealists at the FSF.
It also is their only means of buying time.
They aren't in a lawsuit yet, what judges
are you refering to?
are you refering to?
Fagazoid, shut the fuck up.
awww poor you, were you wrong again?
Of course not. Lindows is being sued by the FSF for violating the GPL. They *have* already distributed binaries without source.
You know...the one you keep missing!
While the rest of the world and media talks about how much of a paradigm shift this is compared with Microsoft's OEM plans, NewsForge once again looks right past the REAL story to find anything bad to say about Lindows.
What I see is a lot of jealousy from geeks who are upset because someone has finally figured out how to get the rest of the world to look at Linux.
I predict Lindows will be around long after Mandrake and the others have gone under, so you might as well settle in and get use to them being around for a long time.
While the rest of the world and media talks about how much of a paradigm shift this is compared with Microsoft's OEM plans, NewsForge once again looks right past the REAL story to find anything bad to say about Lindows.
What I see is a lot of jealousy from geeks who are upset because someone has finally figured out how to get the rest of the world to look at Linux.
I predict Lindows will be around long after Mandrake and the others have gone under, so you might as well settle in and get use to them being around for a long time.
This company is a wolf in sheep clothing. They pretend to be a friend of the community, but stab it in the back at the first chance. How could they ask anyone from the free software world to sign a NDA?
Who ever is saying on these site that they are an "Insider" is a lier. Why?
Well, a person can not sign a NDA for GPL software. So that means that Nothing that a person get will be any thing from the GPL code. In other words no software.
The only ones that would possibly be defending the actions of Lindows are Lindow employees. They are the ones say that they are "Insiders". They are the ones that are attacking people for questioning Lindows intentions.
Why are they doing this? IPO!
If Lindows fails they they have lost their investments, their stock offerings, their time.
But beware Lindows is just another Enron. It's all smoke and mirrors and it's just trying to cash in before anyone realizes that.
But too late for Lindows the word is out. And if you think fighting Microsoft is going to hard, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Who ever is saying on these site that they are an "Insider" is a lier. Why?
Well, a person can not sign a NDA for GPL software. So that means that Nothing that a person get will be any thing from the GPL code. In other words no software.
The only ones that would possibly be defending the actions of Lindows are Lindow employees. They are the ones say that they are "Insiders". They are the ones that are attacking people for questioning Lindows intentions.
Why are they doing this? IPO!
If Lindows fails they they have lost their investments, their stock offerings, their time.
But beware Lindows is just another Enron. It's all smoke and mirrors and it's just trying to cash in before anyone realizes that.
But too late for Lindows the word is out. And if you think fighting Microsoft is going to hard, you ain't seen nothing yet.
If Lindows is so horrible, then why hasn't any of the of Linux distro's made any sweet deals with PC makers to provide a cheap OS? There are a lot of people who are "dumb" (non computer savvy) and they need a "dumb" OS, but they hate microsoft and they usually become MAC users (those that can afford Apple's expensive hardware). If Redhat, Mandrake, or any other distro could put out a dumbed down OS for release to the general market, it would probably be very well recieved just because it wasn't windows.
There are a lot of people who are "dumb" (non computer savvy)
You mean like the Lindows executives? All they had to do was comply with the GPL and they were so greedy they couldn't even do that!
There were about 180 linux distributions, last time I checked. Many are much easier to use than Lindows. With Lindows you start with very little, and download (UGH!) anything you actually need. How is that good for the general market?
When you're in business, you sell to make a profit. That's not greed. The GPL is first and formost about giving away and "sharing" code. That makes it difficult to sell anything GPL based which is why the market for Linux software and services is not very profitable and in most cases businesses can't make enough money to stay in that market - or hadn't you noticed? I guess you're still blaming the "greedy" Venture Caps for the dotcom/linux burnout.
Where is your evidence of "many" other distributions being easier to use than Lindows? Have you actually used Lindows, or are you spouting off because of some misguided feeling of "community"?
To answer your final point, it's good for the market because it differentiates between the OS distributor provider (Lindows) and the providers of sofware (3rd parties) which runs on that OS. That means that the OS must provide a safe, accessible means of installing and uninstalling that 3rd party software. Compare that to the mess of compile-it-yourself/RPM/URPMI/DEB/APTGET which we all have to live with currently.
Wise up. Idiot.
Where is your evidence of "many" other distributions being easier to use than Lindows? Have you actually used Lindows, or are you spouting off because of some misguided feeling of "community"?
To answer your final point, it's good for the market because it differentiates between the OS distributor provider (Lindows) and the providers of sofware (3rd parties) which runs on that OS. That means that the OS must provide a safe, accessible means of installing and uninstalling that 3rd party software. Compare that to the mess of compile-it-yourself/RPM/URPMI/DEB/APTGET which we all have to live with currently.
Wise up. Idiot.
Its a very good question and I don't know the answer. Most serious Linux users prefer an OS-less PC so they can install their distro of choice in the manner and configuration of their choosing. Another segment of the competant Linux population will buy a system with the Linux distro of their choice pre-installed, and then they'll do with it as they wish. And yet, the newbie Linux user, while certainly much more welcome now then they were even 18 months ago, still has to do more than they would expect with a commodity product.
However, there aren't any resellers that I'm familiar with who will give you a distro with the menus trimmed down, desktop shortcuts to your OpenOffice productivity software, Gimp, e-mail and internet, maybe some nice fonts installed. Then make available the standard hardware accessories, printers, scanners, etc readily available and pre-tested and pre-configured. That's a big part of the Lindows-Walmart deal and why Lindows as a general product was still in beta while their Wal-Mart version was production-ready.
The desktop argument against Linux for the casual consumer market is pretty much over, assuming the system is properly configured and sensibly laid out beforehand. If you preinstall the apps, make the desktop look pretty, add a nice, automated package manager and update utility, get the drivers preconfigured so they can Plug-and-Play, you're ready to go for a large segment of a large market.
The arguments aginst Lindows are based partly on practical and partly on philosophical grounds. On a practical note, it is a security flaw to run as root all the time, even though Lindows made a strong effort to secure the box by closing unused ports, setting up firewalls, etc. I'm still not entirely sure from a technical standpoint why they couldn't run as a user and then move into superuser mode when downloading applications through Click-and-Run. I would know better, but that brings me to the philosophical issue: I can't tell from the source code. Lindows is currenly working with the FSF to get more in line with the GPL, but most GNU/Linux users don't appreciate a company playing fast and loose with GNU software licenses while profiting from them, which is the current state of affairs.
I must add here, for fairness sake, that there are many aspects to security. Firewalls are one. Permissions are another. Updates are another. If you aren't running as root but you haven't gotten your ipchains and iptables configured correcly and/or you're not up to speed on your patches, you are vulnerable. Yes, an attacker can only wipe out your home directory and access files, directories and services for which you have permission, but that's hardly reassuring.
And it should also be noted that Lindows is working with the FSF to deal with parts of their license that aren't in compliance with the GNU. Not being fully in compliance with the GNU isn't always as aful as it may seem. Check out the Apache licensing conflict. Not to compare Lindows and Apache, just to point out that the GPL can be hard to comply with at times and they are in negotiations with the FSF to work it out.
And thirdly, the GPL does not require that you distribute the binaries free of charge. Just that you distribute the source code with the binaries. Ask United Linux. Ask Ebin Moglen. Lindows did and on April 18th included the source code with their binaries.
There are those that will claim that Lindows got the WalMart contract because of an MS conspiracy to discredit Linux in a grassroots effort to spawn viruses in a box running as root. You may disregard these people. I haven't heard of a Lindows-type distribution plan that was pursued by other Linux companies and then disbanded because of unexplained interference from the distributors. IBM and Dell discontinued their laptop product lines due to a lack of profitability in targeting their high-end machines to a Linux audience. Its a completely different issue then Lindows and what we're talking about here.
And keep an eye out. Mandrake may be coming to Wal-Mart.com soon!
However, there aren't any resellers that I'm familiar with who will give you a distro with the menus trimmed down, desktop shortcuts to your OpenOffice productivity software, Gimp, e-mail and internet, maybe some nice fonts installed. Then make available the standard hardware accessories, printers, scanners, etc readily available and pre-tested and pre-configured. That's a big part of the Lindows-Walmart deal and why Lindows as a general product was still in beta while their Wal-Mart version was production-ready.
The desktop argument against Linux for the casual consumer market is pretty much over, assuming the system is properly configured and sensibly laid out beforehand. If you preinstall the apps, make the desktop look pretty, add a nice, automated package manager and update utility, get the drivers preconfigured so they can Plug-and-Play, you're ready to go for a large segment of a large market.
The arguments aginst Lindows are based partly on practical and partly on philosophical grounds. On a practical note, it is a security flaw to run as root all the time, even though Lindows made a strong effort to secure the box by closing unused ports, setting up firewalls, etc. I'm still not entirely sure from a technical standpoint why they couldn't run as a user and then move into superuser mode when downloading applications through Click-and-Run. I would know better, but that brings me to the philosophical issue: I can't tell from the source code. Lindows is currenly working with the FSF to get more in line with the GPL, but most GNU/Linux users don't appreciate a company playing fast and loose with GNU software licenses while profiting from them, which is the current state of affairs.
I must add here, for fairness sake, that there are many aspects to security. Firewalls are one. Permissions are another. Updates are another. If you aren't running as root but you haven't gotten your ipchains and iptables configured correcly and/or you're not up to speed on your patches, you are vulnerable. Yes, an attacker can only wipe out your home directory and access files, directories and services for which you have permission, but that's hardly reassuring.
And it should also be noted that Lindows is working with the FSF to deal with parts of their license that aren't in compliance with the GNU. Not being fully in compliance with the GNU isn't always as aful as it may seem. Check out the Apache licensing conflict. Not to compare Lindows and Apache, just to point out that the GPL can be hard to comply with at times and they are in negotiations with the FSF to work it out.
And thirdly, the GPL does not require that you distribute the binaries free of charge. Just that you distribute the source code with the binaries. Ask United Linux. Ask Ebin Moglen. Lindows did and on April 18th included the source code with their binaries.
There are those that will claim that Lindows got the WalMart contract because of an MS conspiracy to discredit Linux in a grassroots effort to spawn viruses in a box running as root. You may disregard these people. I haven't heard of a Lindows-type distribution plan that was pursued by other Linux companies and then disbanded because of unexplained interference from the distributors. IBM and Dell discontinued their laptop product lines due to a lack of profitability in targeting their high-end machines to a Linux audience. Its a completely different issue then Lindows and what we're talking about here.
And keep an eye out. Mandrake may be coming to Wal-Mart.com soon!
Lindows is most likely the best thing to happen to Linux at this time, it's opening eyes and creating a bridge market that pushes Linux farther into the consumer market. Keep in mind, Lindows is not being touted as a server or professional OS, but as a consumer desktop OS, a market that is not fully adressed in the Linux world.
A desktop OS has to be dumb to a certain degree, simply for the fact that most consumers are not Linux gurus, no less computer gurus at that. If the Linux community has the beef I see here regarding Lindows, then smarten up and bring out a dumb desktop Linux that is consumer friendly with winblows style software that equals or rivals Microshaft garb. After all, what makes winblows so popular is the huge consumer frindly software base.
For those of you that disagree, then maybe you should take a look at Xandros Linux, still to be officially released, which is the Linux base of Lindows. One of the few companies trying to build a consumer based Linux. And for those who want Lindows without the licensing, take Xandros and add Wine, and bingo.
Bottom line is, Lindows is not ready for prime time yet, hense the insider scheme. Wait for the finished product, I'm sure you will see something happen that will make Linux more viable in a Microshaft dominated world.
A desktop OS has to be dumb to a certain degree, simply for the fact that most consumers are not Linux gurus, no less computer gurus at that. If the Linux community has the beef I see here regarding Lindows, then smarten up and bring out a dumb desktop Linux that is consumer friendly with winblows style software that equals or rivals Microshaft garb. After all, what makes winblows so popular is the huge consumer frindly software base.
For those of you that disagree, then maybe you should take a look at Xandros Linux, still to be officially released, which is the Linux base of Lindows. One of the few companies trying to build a consumer based Linux. And for those who want Lindows without the licensing, take Xandros and add Wine, and bingo.
Bottom line is, Lindows is not ready for prime time yet, hense the insider scheme. Wait for the finished product, I'm sure you will see something happen that will make Linux more viable in a Microshaft dominated world.
It's really the name they're licensing...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 11, 2002 01:39 AMOf course, many people would argue that that isn't much to boast about and that the vendors would do just as well to pre-install Lindows and just not call it that.
#