Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
DebConf 2 summary, including notes from Michael Robertson's keynote
Share
Print
CommentsLindows CEO Michael Robertson took a day out of his schedule to address DebConf 2, held at York University a few days ago in Toronto, to discuss the past, present, and future of the Debian project. Lindows' business model, he says, is built around marketing and the need for users to pay a $99/year subscription fee that, while isn't required, provides access to software that makes the system fully usable. First though, is a summary of some of the more interesting discussions that took place at DebConf 2.
Commercial Use of Debian
Debian Project Leader Bdale Garbee discussed at length the history of Debian's commercial ventures. Corel, now flying under the banner of Xandros, is the best known of the commercial attempts of Debian, but two other companies may be getting somewhere with the effort.
Progeny, run by Debian founder Ian Murdock, employs six Debian Developers and is working on commercially distributing Debian.
Lindows.com, run by MP3.com founder Michael Robertson, does not appear to employ any Debian Developers. It has created a graphical installer for Debian and has repackaged a number of Debian packages. For a $99/year subscription fee, Lindows hopes to grab some market share from the "Mom and Grandma" section of the Linux market.
Extreme Perl
Friday night Damian Conway gave his interpretation of extreme programming with his presentation "Extreme Perl". The talk discusses a 999 byte perl program which does some amazing feats and is rather obfuscated. The short program has a variety of features from replicating itself to displaying a text marquee on the screen. If you can get to one of Damian Conway's talks, by all means go. It is very enlightening.
Free Software in the Third World
Among the topics discussed were the use of free software in third world countries such as Brazil, presented by Henrique de Moraes Holschuh.
Henrique reported how the use of free software is beginning to narrow a social gap in Brazil by allowing access to computers without having to pay exhorbatant licensing costs. Software in Brazil costs an average of 4 times what it does in North America measured by a function of average income, buying power, and actual cost. This puts legal commercial software well out of reach of most Brazilian users.
He described conditions in Brazil as being in a state of civil war. The economic divide between rich and poor is tremendously wide and no one can move up in the society without any skills. Unskilled labour is easy to come by and not worth very much.
Free software is allowing people to set up operating systems like Linux on old hardware and learn to use computers without fear of being talked to by the authorities about using illegally-obtained software.
Lindows.com
Saturday night, Lindows.com CEO Michael Robertson spoke to DebConf about his history of running mp3.com and Lindows.com.
Robertson started his talk by discussing his first venture: a digital camera business. He said the business failed miserably because, and he repeated this several times through the night, he hadn't listened to the market.
Down on his luck, he started a digital music exchange site and found that most users were searching for something he had not heard of before - "MP3." Not knowing what it was, he contacted the owner of "mp3.com" in an effort to buy the domain. The owner of the domain asked what he wanted it for, and Robertson responded that he wanted to set up an MP3 information site.
The owner of the domain responded, "What is mp3?"
The site got 10,000 unique hits on the first day of operation, and that, Robertson said, meant he was listening to the customers.
After telling the conference this story, Robertson got on to the meat of his discussion - Lindows.com.
Lindows, he said, was the frequent target of criticism from NewsForge. For that he got a chuckle from the whole room.
Lindows, as mentionned above, is based almost entirely on Debian GNU/Linux. For his presentation, he plugged a laptop into an overhead projector and put in a Lindows CD. On booting, the installation asked if the system should coexist with Windows. Upon an answer of no, the installation promptly installed and booted into a KDE-based graphical environment.
From there, the Lindows system allows the user to pay an annual subscription service to get access to a service they have termed "Click-N-Run". Essentially it is a graphical version of Debian's apt utility. It downloads a program and it then becomes available to the user.
A paid subscription service to use a version of Linux? The most enlightening part of Mr. Robertson's talk, certainly. It completely explains Lindows' name and Microsoft's concern about similarity.
Robertson was also pleased about Lindows' deal with MicroTel and Walmart.com to sell cheap computers pre-installed with Lindows at Walmart's on-line store.
Lindows being available on a cheap computer from Walmart sounds really good on the surface, but is it really any help?
Consider that Microsoft is asking users to pay a subscription fee for Windows XP updates. The concept is remarkably similar to Lindows' concept of a subscription fee-based system for additional services -- primarily upgrades. Now consider that people buying MicroTel's computers at Walmart are probably choosing those computers for their economy: They're cheap, they come with Linux on them, and for users not philosophically inclined to use Linux, these computers' primary advantage comes from their low cost. So lo, "mom and grandma" type users have bought this cheap computer in an effort to avoid the high cost of ownership of a Windows system, and bam, to get the services they are told they need, they have to pay a $99/year subscription fee. The advantage of cost has just been sent out the window.
Ultimately, it seems, Lindows' efforts can't help Linux. When a user uses it, they'll find it to be not terribly different from the Windows they left, including its cost, and Linux will not seem like much of a "free" alternative.
I'm sorry, Mr. Robertson, but yes, we do pick on you quite regularly and it seems to me we've got reason to.
That said, thank you Lindows for supper Saturday night. I was getting kind of tired of fast food from the student centre.
Linux Standard Base (LSB) and Debian - Matt Taggart's talk
Matt Taggart opened Sunday morning with a discussion of Debian and the Linux Standard Base. The Linux Standard Base provides a set of standards by which all Linux distributions should set up their base systems. This does not preclude multiple distributions and multiple layouts, it only ensures that it is not impossible to cross-port applications within versions of Linux.
Debian expects to be the first fully compliant distribution by version 3.1. Debian is being used as a pilot project for LSB to test the standards and make sure they make sense and there are no gaping holes.
Supporting the users
David B. Harris spent Sunday afternoon discussing how projects like Debian should go about supporting their users.
Harris is a package maintainer for Debian and spends a lot of time trying to help users in channel #debian on irc.debian.org. From there he has gained a good deal of experience with helping users and has a number of recommendations for the Debian community.
His main recommendation is the creation of a knowledge database. Currently there exists an attempt at a knowledge database in the form of an IRC bot named 'apt' at the aformentioned channel. When a user has a question, a quick instruction to the bot will often tell the user the answer they need, and this is sufficient to help the majority of users seeking help. A further knowledge base would be a more complete version of that bot which could be used both on and off IRC.
Mailing lists are another major source of support for users. Debian has a mailing list called debian-user@lists.debian.org. This list has an enormous amount of traffic, and often the same questions are asked over and over. An improved mailing list system is needed, Harris argues.
One suggestion was the creation of a support@debian.org address where users could respond to users from the knowledge database, or, failing that, forward the email to the appropriate developer or list. This would allow filtration of questions, and important questions would get asked in lists with a good signal to noise ratio.
The Debian/BSD project
The maintainers of the Debian/FreeBSD, Debian/NetBSD, and Debian/OpenBSD updated present members on the status of each of their projects. Essentially, all three of the Debian ports have bootable versions, but none of them are ready for mainstream use.
When the Debian/BSD projects are complete, Debian will be supported on 12 hardware architectures
and 5 kernels:
Hardware platforms:
- Intel x86 / IA-32 (i386)
- Motorola 68k (m68k)
- Sun SPARC (sparc)
- Alpha (alpha)
- Motorola/IBM PowerPC (powerpc)
- ARM (arm)
- Sun UltraSPARC (sparc64)
- MIPS CPUs (mips and mipsel)
- HP PA-RISC (hppa)
- IA-64 (ia64)
- S/390 (s390)
- SuperH (sh)
The conference was concluded by a totally off-topic but very interesting talk by Debian Project Leader Bdale Garbee on his involvement with AMSAT - an organisation which has so far put 40 amateur satellites into space.
Comments
on DebConf 2 summary, including notes from Michael Robertson's keynoteNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
There are two parts to this suggestion:
1) A panel to add/remove packages that only includes the major software, could hide smaller install packages, or gave friendly names like Adobe Acrobat instead of the technical name. Simply put, a separate package manager designed for newbies.
2) Even more useful would be a web based install program. By this I mean that you could click on a link and it would install the software for you. No going to command line, no hunting around in KPackage... Just click Install and it installs. (Yes, I'm basically just describing Click'N'Run, but without the $99 and something that anyone could post on any site.)
Yes, this could be used to install viruses/etc. But you could just as easily link an RPM packaged with a virus or backdoor with a newbie's explanation of how to install it.
Lindows has a good idea with Click'N'Run. It would make things a lot easier for new users. The $99 charge wouldn't even be so vile if the CDs didn't come stripped to the bone.
Installing software is still nasty for newbies. And remember, corporations are FULL of newbies. Corporations are also the ones who'll make Linux profitable in the end. Something to consider.
How many applications require me to download a file in a .tar.gz format - untar it, execute ./configure make and make install and hope that it doesn't puke all over the place? Compare this to Windows world where you run a program and it asks a few basic questions like what directory you want it and it's done. I rarely spend more than 10-15 minutes - and rarely even that long - installing Windows software - I have yet to install a downloaded program on Linux within 10-15 minutes - ok there is one outstanding exception.... Open Office - but even that one the first time took a bit as I found out I had to install Java runtime application. In short - while you can get software for free here and there it often isn't nearly as simple as Windows - having a feature like Click 'n Run helps deal with this problem and makes it a lot easier for the non-technical individual who doesn't want to spend 45 minutes installing software.
I cannot understand why such a great offering can't even get the mention in an article while "Ghey Lindows" is getting notice from everywhere and Lindows is the biggest POS of the year.
Open ur eyes please !!
I buy a WORKING car from my auto-dealership. I did not buy a car-kit. I did not install my own transmission. I did not install my own more efficent air-conditioner. People should get similar service when they buy a computer. Especially Lindows claim that casual, non-technical users are their target audience.
Instead, they sell these ultra-newbies a semi-installed system. Then ask them to install software from their 99$ a year mirror, OVER A 56K MODEM no less!
Can you say LinuxOne????
Windows has a half assed port. Or maybe I
should say it's all the way full assed.
Winner: Lindows (and linux).
Windows has Bonzi buddy.
Lindows\Linux do not.
Winner: Again, Lindows (and Linux)
Windows has that stupid program where
resident evil characters walk around the
desktop and moan and my stupid brother
keeps installing it.
Lindows\Linux do not.
Winner: Once again, Lindows\Linux.
Windows has the registry database design
flaw that causes it to slow down and
start crashing with age.
No other operating system has that, at
least not that I know of.
Winner: Every OS I have ever heard of that
isn't named Win9x, ME, XP, NT 4.x, or NT 5.x.
So you see, even if there is a subscription,
Lindows is still Linux and has almost all
of it's advantages (they cut down a security
features though) so it's almost as good.
It may be substandard Linux, but if it
does run Gimp well and doesn't like Bonzi
Buddy, than it is still a thousand times
better than Windows.
-Frapazoid =D
Re:But you are missing a very very important point
Posted by: Joseph Cooper on July 13, 2002 01:25 AMdebate. As you notice, I didn't mention
anything relating to business practices
or licensing.
-Frapazoid =D
Re:But you are missing a very very important point
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 13, 2002 04:33 AMThe Registry in Windows NT and above is a central database of system configuration settings and is analogous to the AIX Object Data Manager database. However, all comparisons between the Windows Registry and the ODM stop there.
While it IS possible to have system problems that are related to the ODM, they are rarely a big problem and usually the result of a bad application, rather than an inherent flaw in the technical design. If you can crash AIX, its probably because you're a menace.
However, the Registry is a flawed technology which attempts to solve a small problem with an oversized solution and MUST eventually cause problems.
The logic behind the Registry was that it would pull all of the information previously stored in INI files into one central location that could be easily accessed and managed by admins as well as applications and would be free of the size constraints of INI files and provide a hierarchical structure to store more information more logically.
Registry data is stored in the paged pool, which is an area of the memory made available to all system components. This is the cause of almost all of your problems in Windows and will never go away as long as the Registry exists.
The purported advantage of the Registry is that binary lookups are faster than file reads. However, that minute speed difference is certainly outweighed by the performance impact of that big thing in your paged pool.
There are several reasons why text-based configuration files are considered preferable to MS's Registry. First of all, you get a date/time stamp with an INI file. Its not too dificult to do a search on your system and see which intialization files have been changed since a certain date, to track a problem, for instance. The Registry does not provide similar functionality.
INI files are easily edited with anything from Word to edlin. You need to use tools like the Registry Editor to manage the Registry.
File permissions are easily understood and managed while Registry permissions (which are functionally similar) are poorly documented and difficult to understand intuitively.
Most unfortunately is the fact that, as a central repository, its a central repository. A single point of failure (well, technically two, system.dat and user.dat). Not only is it possible to install a program that does not correctly set its Registry functions or remove them on uninstallation, it actually quite likely.
There was a legitimate purpose behind the creation of the Registry, which is why its existed in Windows (in an embryonic form) since 3.1. If there's a hard drive failure, just one file needs to be recovered. You can back up the registry. Also, there threatened to be a disk space penalty with all those INI files. And when it was first developed, we were still working with FAT tables and small hard drives.
However, these problems don't exist anymore and rather than using hard drive space, which is almost unlimited anymore for all intents and purposes, the paged pool is used.
In regards to the security problems - I agree that having the default user being root isn't a good thing - but you know what? The user can create their own userid and sign on with that user - even with (duh) Lindows - and any bad PR will be Lindows (never heard anybody who had a bad experience with a Ford saying that the auto industry sucks - just with Ford (exchange whatever brand you wish to here).
If they're really "charging for the service" then why don't they run their own apt mirrors?
Having said that - Lindows being Debian based - could not the user do the above anyway and not subscribe to the $100 service if they so choose? Or is Linux not about choice - that's what I thought the idea behind Linux was - choice.... but some would have it to mean Linux is choice as long as you do what I do....
Uhhh... they aren't required to subscribe to Click'N'Run.
If apt-get is so easy, they can USE Lindows and USE apt-get!!! The $99 Click'N'Run is ONLY for people who don't want to use apt-get, yes?
If people want to pay $99 to avoid apt-get, why not let them? It's there if they want it, isn't it?
Click'N'Run is just an extra program. Why lambaste them for having an extra program? Lambaste them for shipping half-empty distros, like they deserve.
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 be hard, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.
This is actually very logical when you consider that the GPL is mostly concerned with distribution.
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
the original AR's message is not an uninformed flame. Everything that he accused Lindows of did happen at one time (and may still be happening).
Yes, Lindows did violate the GNU GPL. They had conformance problems with it.
The only thing that the original poster MAY have gotten wrong is the use of the present tense.
So, Lindows at one time did have problems conforming to the GNU GPL linked to NDA'ing their release. I wonder how many conformance problems they still have...
Oh yes, and there's no ambiguity about this issue. It did happen... The only question left is how much of it is still going on at Lindows...
a person can not sign a NDA for GPL software.
They can and do. That's what I had wanted to clear up. Not even so much for Lindows' sake, but just because its a commonly misunderstood aspect of the GPL. Tense is everything here.
Lindows made employees sign the NDA during beta testing before they had released source. Once the FSF told them that they were in violation of the GPL by not releasing the source during beta, they complied with both the source code release and the release of the NDA, which is 'letter of the law' GPL compliance.
Disputes with the GPL do not make you an enemy. Unresolved disputes over serious issues do. Also, their GPL problems were 'de minimus' GPL offenses. Until I'm advised otherwise by the FSF, I have to list their offenses with a severity I attribute to Apache or, to an even greater degree, RT/Linux.
As far as continued GPL offenses, they are currently working with the FSF on their licensing. And they Click-and-Buy service is also not a GPL violation.
I'm waiting for a final judgement, so to speak, by the FSF on Lindows liensing. I plan to come out on the official side of the FSF, whatever it may be.
The other elements of the post which I consider an uniformed flame include the Enron reference and the IPO reference. That was put there intentionally for shock value, as I'm sure the poster has neither financial competance nor access to their books. As AR says, 'only Lindows employees are insiders' and I'm pretty sure he's not their CFO! :)
This issue concerns the role of NDAs within the GPL license and how the distribution of the source code ultimately affects their compliance.
It can be a tricky area, so I can see how you might get confused.
You Have Been Warned!
I had mentioned that I found CrossOver Office to be a nice transition component in this situation. And I've mostly thought of the Wal-Mart/Lindows combo as an alternative for the home consumer.
However, when considering Lindows as a Linux OS for systems in transition, it seems like a really attractive alternative.
(Note to Anonymous Users: Before you flame, Mac chose a BSD kernel underlying their OS look-and-feel as a way to increase their stability and functionality without alienating the user base. I would use Lindows as an MS alternative with similar rationale. And flame me, not Rocky. Its my post.)
Lindows is an architectural and ethical travesty that will ultimately end up turning any prospective GNU/Linux user into an enemy of our movement.
If you're going to advocate Lindows, do so with an eye to exactly WHAT you're advocating, not the marketing drivel around it.
The ethical:
It took me a while to filter through the whole Lindows-is-being-sued-by-the-FSF thing.
I finally sorted through it, mostly. The FSF sent Lindows an open letter complaining that distributing their beta code without the source is a violation of the GPL. This is stated clearly in the GPL. Lindows then distributed the source with their beta.
Lindows Click-and-Buy service is also not in violation of the GPL, which clearly states that you may charge for binaries, but not charge moer for the source. They aren't charging for GPLd software, they're charging for the service surrounding the software.
Currently, the FSF is revising the Builder OEM agreement so that Lindows can keep their name, which is permitted in the GPL, but not infringe on the GPL license. I read the license and its a violation of roughly the severity of Apache's.
None of the disagreements reached a court of law.
The architectural:
I've also reconciled myself with the root issue by reading their documentation and evaluating the effect of running as root within the context of a secure consumer system, considering their port, service, and software distribution standards. I have an evaluation of this in some other post.
I've also read some objective reviews that don't give Lindows particularly high marks, particlarly concerning flaws in the Click-and-Run distribution system.
The result:
Would I recommend Lindows to any of the clients I deal with? No. They all have a competant IT staff who is more than capable of creating a custom, secure base desktop using Debian or RedHat or SusE and that can take more full advantage of Linux as an enterprise system.
Would I recommend Lindows to family, friends, or home users. Probably not. You shouldn't use Click-and-Run with a dial-up modem.
But would I completely discount Lindows? If Eblin Moglen doesn't have a problem, I don't have a problem.
After all that, you're just a sucker who can't think for himself.
Get a life, loser!
That's Eben Moglen...
They are addressing their intentional GNU GPL violations. I draw the line at mistakes. I'll forgive mistakes, Lindows was intentionally violating the GNU GPL - thus I don't trust them and never will...
If someone rapes my wife and then pays me 10,000 USD on the way out the door after shaking my hand and apologizing, I'm still going to kill the bastard.
Having said that - I certainly understand the marketplace that is being addressed. I personally use Suse 7.3 - while it's a very good distro and fairly easy to work with - it's far from something that a non-technical user would feel comfortable installing the third party software on. If I had a $1.00 for each wasted 1/2 hour due to installing packages required to install the program I wanted to use I'd be filthy rich. Compare that to Windows - you obtain nearly any Windows package and you have everything you need to install it - point and click - reboot and you're done - it's so far ahead of Linux in this area that it isn't funny.
Reality: Over 99% of the general population does not understand the concept of a file system, let alone what /usr/local/* , /etc/*.conf , or vi is.
Reality: The average person, likely more than 98% of the general population, does not want to understand a machine's back-end system. Most people don't want to spend a brain cycle thinking about the possibility of deciphering a ./README or ./INSTALL file. The concept of ./configure --help is unconceivable. The average user simply wants pretty graphics, and the ability to click once to try something new.
Reality: $99 per year = $.27 per day or less than $2 per week. The average clueless individual would rather pay this meager amount of money and be given the opportunity to "not think" when installing a new application, than to learn something new that can quickly become quite overwhelming.
Reality: Microsoft has made it such that you cannot walk into a major PC distribution facility and purchase a machine without paying the M$ tax.
Lindows has a great business model. Lindows allows the general population to expeditiously use these great open-source applications that we enjoy and depend on. I can't wait until they announces an IPO.
WindowsXP = $200
And then you get to add $400 for Office, $400 for PhotoShop, $100 for Quicken, etc. etc. etc.
LindowsOS with CNR included = $100
StarOffice is in their Warehouse, that's $75 right there.
In other words, yes, those "cheap" WalMart buyers will save over $1,000 going the Lindows/Linux route.
their "terms of use" within a week (without a notification
to me though). I'm not sure if this was an honest mistake on
their part, but its at least somewhat suspicious in the light
of their previous actions (see letter from Bruce Perens et al).
To: cheryl@lindows.com
Subject: "Terms Of Use Lindows.com"
Cheryl,
From what I've read from the "Terms Of Use Lindows.com" page
http://www.lindows.com/lindows_termsconditions.php
This section contains a blatent lie:
====
Use of Software
Use of the software that is made available to download from this Site
is subject to the terms of the license agreement that accompanies the
software. If you do not agree to such terms of the license agreement you
will not be able to use the software. The software and documentation is
the copyrighted and/or patented work of Lindows.com.
====
This sections also covers "use of Lindows.com's systems" as stated in the
opening section of this document.
The last sentence of the shown section states that all the software of a
"Lindows System" is "copyrighted and/or patented work of Lindows.com".
This is an illegal lie, and discredits the Free Software works upon which
you've based your product and services. Learn to respect other peoples
property. Also, loosely mentioning patents reflects negative on
your company within the Free Software community, something worth a
thought.
Please fix this mistake in your "Terms Of Use" document ASAP.
the need for users to pay a $99/year subscription
Posted by: Francisco J. Diaz III on July 15, 2002 09:01 AMHowever according to the Lindows FAQ site when asked:
"How much does Lindows Cost?"
The answer is as stated:
"For $99 users will obtain LindowsOS along with the promise that Lindows.com will work hard to give consumers real value. Your satisfaction is assured since all Lindows.com products come with a money-back, satisfaction guarantee. Creating a compatible, stable, easy-to-use OS isn't an easy job, and Lindows.com is committed to remain in this market for many years to come. This $99 fee is expected per major release of LindowsOS and will help Lindows.com to provide quality support and future updates to LindowsOS."
Now I'd like to work with Lindows and help support it, and do think $99 is a reasonable fee for and operating system, I would still like Lindows to comply with the GPL, and have an ISO and/or the source available for people to view.
1) The reviewer is down on Lindows. Maybe it is deserved maybe it isn't. But I will say this. If we wish to have Linux and it's applications succesed we have to get over this hang up about an assocaition of money with linux.
2) Major players like the Fortune 1000 are taking note of Linux. They are using it daily in backoffice systems. However they hold back on further deployment because of a lack of support/handholding. Companies like IBM and Dell has started to provide some moves in the support role. But to achieve deeper peneatration, Linux will need to depend on the deep pockets of business to make the push that will take on Microsoft.
3) If we wish to loosen the grip of Redmond then we should not belittle the development team that takes donations from the likes of HP, IBM or Dell. If anything this maybe a polite notification that the team has a viable product with a significant market segment.
4) The fee for service model as evidenced by Lindows is proper for certain customer segments. Let's not get our briefs in a wad because $$ is involved. Ma Frickert will be glad to pay the fee so long as they have reliable service that keeps their computer running flawlessly, get the updates without having to think and don't get any hassles. One may quibble about the amount but the model is valid.
5) That the Lindows desktop looks surpisingly like Windows is also a valid concept. Has not anybody heard of 'Converson Cost' or 'Resistence to Adoption'? If Ma Frickert is to adopt Linux, the sweetner is that it does not require her to learn how to run it. Look it took Ma 3 years to figure out Windows. She does not want to spend another 3 for Linux. She has cookies to bake OK?
6) Free Software has a unique opportunity right now with the business community. There has been a great deal of resistence to adopt the MS fee model because there is no perceived ROI for software that does not exist in the .NET realm yet. For Free Software to conquer the corporate desktop one needs to package something like the Lindows model, offer it for internal use and management and provide the initial support for the conversion process. Remember that business likes to avoid risk and conversion is considered a very high risk. Support and conversion services are the only way to mitigate that risk. However I must caution -- this is a tough business. Many a VAR has died using this business model.
Just my 2c.
JohnM
Learning from Lindows
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 12, 2002 11:51 PMHow hard would it be to script in something (using apt-get or rpm or whatnot) that would be able to show a list of software and install it for you?
I don't know if this could be purely web based or if you'd install a program that could interact with the web based interface (that would keep track of which packages you have installed), but this would definitely make life easier for technophobes who need computers for some stuff, don't like Microsoft, but are scared of "breaking their computer" (like my in-laws).
Yes, power users would probably never deign to use such a feature. But when the gurus say that non-gurus should "just use M$", they are putting money in Billy G's pocket and helping him in his battle to crush OSS.
It could be our own little Linux Add/Remove Programs interface for newbies and comporate users. But done right.
Tzephtan
#