Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Lindows' Heavy Hand Leads to Summit Dropouts 311

Posted by chrisd from the michael-robertson-needs-charm-school dept.
shawk writes "With Lindows becoming more popular the company's confidence seems to be growing. According to a news item on Desktoplinux.com Lindows unilaterally adjusted the agenda of a planned vendor-neutral summit in a way that is not tolerable for others supporting the conference. A related article on CNET reports HP having withdrawn from the summit as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lindows' Heavy Hand Leads to Summit Dropouts More

Lindows' Heavy Hand Leads to Summit Dropouts

Comments Filter:

  • Oooookay.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GearheadX ( 414240 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:30PM (#5109731)
    A little bit of conventional wisdom: alienating your developers is a Bad Idea.

    • Re:Not just that (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chr1sb ( 642707 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:50PM (#5109876)
      This isn't just alienating developers. It's alienating the whole Linux community, including users, OSS contributors, commercial entities. These people and organisations are working in a cooperative way to achieve (at this time anyhow) related goals. Backing Linux for many organisations, especially commercial ones, can be considered risky. Linux is far less accepted on the desktop, and it is likely that within organisations that are supporting linux, there are strong camps that are opposing or only luke-warm towards it. This action by Lindows is going to give ammunition to the anti-Linux factions, and specifically from Lindows' point of view, destroy trust that is so important to strategic relationships.
      • Lindows really doesn't care if it alienates the Linux community. The attitude is one of "okay, thanks for the thousands of hours of work developing the backbone of the system guys, we'll take it from here, now get lost." The only times Lindows expresses interest in the welfare of the whole community are those times when it will benefit Lindows at least as much as it benefits anyone else. Michael Robertson, while a very charismatic and engaging speaker, is a smooth talking freeloader. Open Source vs. Microsoft, just like MP3 vs. RIAA, is just another easy ride to glory and riches. A while after Lindows becomes profitable, I bet Michael Robertson would sell it to the highest bidder (probably AOL). The really scary thing about Lindows is, Michael Robertson might have as much as $300 million dollars in cash and stock from the MP3.com buyout. Lindows believes that they will win because they've got the dough, and because the marketing+sales department is probably as big as the engineering department. I'm afraid that, because of this, the general public might begin to think LinuxLindowsAOL, just like they currently think PC"Pentinum"Microsoft.

        Now that I've really ripped on Lindows.com, I really have to say that LindowsOS itself is pretty darn easy to use. Click-N-Run is great for installing software. The OS installation really takes less than 10 minutes on my Duron 850 and my XP1800+. But, that far from makes up for the careless treatment of the community.

    • Re:Oooookay.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AxelTorvalds ( 544851 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:44PM (#5110193)
      As we become a more sophisticated community and our products become more sophisticated we will have to constantly be on the watch for this stuff. It's part of the deal.

      Anyone remember LinuxOne? I don't know about you guys but I just get a sleazy feeling from Lindows, the same kind of vibe I got from LinuxOne. How about Loki? I'm not trying to lump Loki in with them per se, there were some good guys that worked there but the company, the CEO, were on the sleezier side of things. I think they are a bit more honest than LinuxOne but I don't think that they are looking to do anything other than make a quick buck. This conference thing is just what I'd expect from them; now I could be wrong and maybe Bruce couldn't speak or something like that but it sounds underhanded.

      It's just something as a community we're going to need to watch, especially if we want to stay a community. I don't know how many times I've heard Redhat descibed as the next redmond or how they're taking over the world with blue curve and bucking; the truth is Redhat has been walking the walk as much as talking the talk and giving a lot back. They still have one of the most free (libre) distributions out there. We need to keep outselves honest and we need to support the community and the companies that benefit it. Maybe it's time for some kind of Linux community watch effort. Like a website where we could post information about companies in this space and what they've given to the community vs. what they've taken and how they've interacted. I know that stuff is hard to do but some kind of self policing might be useful.

      There isn't anything wrong exactly with taking from the community but when a company like MandrakeSoft is on the ropes and a company like Lindows is screwing over other people in the community to push their own message and agenda we need to tell them how to behave with our pocket books. If you're going to pay for a Linux this year, think hard about grabbing a copy of Mandrake and avoid Lindows. Let them take on MS by themselves and see how much they need the community to help them.

      • Re:Oooookay.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Blue Stone ( 582566 )
        "I don't know about you guys but I just get a sleazy feeling from Lindows..."

        Oh, absolutely! These guys smell dodgy. Upstarts with a lack of maturity, balance or integrity. I personally, would stay well clear of anything to do with them.

      • Re:Oooookay.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ToasterTester ( 95180 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:59PM (#5110475)
        The problem is there appears to be more interest in the Free Beer aspect of Linux versus Freedom. Mandrake is a perfect example they contribute a lot to Linux, but how many people are buying a distro to help support the company and the OSS programmers they hire. Software has value and people should pay for software in some way. Sweat equitity via codeing, QA, documentation, tech notes, or paying what they can afford by buying distro or contributing.

        Mandrake should do like OpenBSD and not make ISO images available. They tell people to help suppost OpenBSD by purchasing a distro. If you won't buy OpenBSD then you can download all the files and roll your own CD-ROMS. I think that is very fair.

        • Mandrake Club? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by modulo ( 172960 )
          Mandrake says they get a bigger "cut" from Mandrake Club memberships than they do from the boxed product.

          If there were no .ISO's, I would never have gone through the trouble to install it.

          Not having installed it, I wouldn't have felt the need to give anything back by "joining".

          So, I get to do easy installations, they get their money, this is a bad thing?

          Of course, it remains to be seen whether relying on others' sense of duty is a sustainable business model, but I hope it does.

        • Re:Oooookay.... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kikta ( 200092 )
          The problem is there appears to be more interest in the Free Beer aspect of Linux versus Freedom.


          I think you're right on this point. This is where we as a community need to point out in our advocacy that the Freedom aspect is what puts Linux ahead of the crowd. Quite honestly, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of us who wouldn't want to (or don't - I got mine from MS, since I'm in college) pay for Windows, except for the fact that most people have it & we need it for our work and games.

          I would, OTOH, be willing to pay for Linux, even if that was the only option, because of the quality. I think we need to make it clear to people that the Free Beer is just icing on the cake compared to the Freedom, which drives every single other advantage it has.
        • Mandrake should do like OpenBSD and not make ISO images available.

          Well then all new users would flock to other distros such as Red Hat since they can download an ISO. Your approach would work for existing users, but under this approach Mandrake's growth would come to a screeching halt. If mandrake did not have an ISO available, I would have never tried the distro and subsequently would have never joined the mandrake club. Potential users especially coming from windows need to be able to evaluate the product without having to purchase it. Crippled evaluation versions will not work because the users Mandrake is targeting are not the type that would be willing to go through the hassle of installing an OS just for evaluation. Solutions such as Suse's eval CD are interesting in the sense that a user can see what things look like, but people need to use the finished product before purchase.

        • You get to help choose what actually goes into the distro, what more could a geek want?

      • Re:Oooookay.... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by God! Awful 2 ( 631283 )

        Anyone remember LinuxOne? I don't know about you guys but I just get a sleazy feeling from Lindows, the same kind of vibe I got from LinuxOne. How about Loki? I'm not trying to lump Loki in with them per se, there were some good guys that worked there but the company, the CEO, were on the sleezier side of things. I think they are a bit more honest than LinuxOne but I don't think that they are looking to do anything other than make a quick buck.
        Let's face it, but this is no surprise. When you take a product that is free and you encourage people to commercialize it, you tend to attract slimeballs. That's why so many websites sell your personal info. That's why Kazaa includes spyware.

        I don't know how many times I've heard Redhat descibed as the next redmond or how they're taking over the world with blue curve and bucking; the truth is Redhat has been walking the walk as much as talking the talk and giving a lot back.
        RedHat management may be idealists right now, but who owns RedHat? They are a public company, and if they don't start making significant profits, the board of directors (or the major shareholders) are going to rise up and install their own management. Business is business.

        -a

  • Typical (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tuxlove ( 316502 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:33PM (#5109756)
    I thought Michael Robertson had changed his ways when he started Lindows. Guess not. This seems to be indication that he's got as much hubris as ever.
    • This guy is very smart at how to play the game the wrong way and come out a winner.

      MP3.com made this guy famous and made him lots of money. The myMP3.com service was his fatal mistake, causing the major labels to basically end up owning the site, but in the process he made his money. He doesn't mind breaking the rules so long as the reward for doing so is greater than the penalty for doing so.

      He basically made promises to get his show promotion from people who would not go to a show with the present agenda, then turned around and betrayed that trust. He'll still end up with more attendees than if he had launched with this agenda posted in the first place.

      Yeah, he burned the Open Source community... but he thinks nothing much bad can come from that. Well, can it?

  • First things first (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:34PM (#5109760) Journal
    Any source code yet? Is Lindows stealing from open source programers?

    • Re:First things first (Score:5, Informative)

      by davidsansome ( 563576 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:48PM (#5109858)
      Any source code yet?

      Yes, right here [130.94.123.237] - all the source and all the modifications made to all the packages in Lindows.

      Is Lindows stealing from open source programers?

      Nope, one of my packages was included in Lindows, and the President even contacted me personally to ask if I could add a few features. They aren't stealing from open source "programers" - they're complying fully with the GPL.
      • Very cool. After their closed source beta distribution, I hadn't heard any updates on GPL compliance.

      • Re:First things first (Score:2, Insightful)

        by CNeb96 ( 60366 )
        How much of the program is GPL'ed? Windows Manager and all or just Linux kernel modifications? If it's all GPL'ed has someone made a free binary distro available for download? IANAL but if I understand the GPL correctly every owner has this right. I would be curious to try it if it was free, but I won't pay over $100 for a Linux distro that I probably won't use for very long.
      • Cool, thanks for setting aside my fears.

      • Nope, one of my packages was included in Lindows, and the President even contacted me personally to ask if I could add a few features. They aren't stealing from open source "programers" - they're complying fully with the GPL.

        Did he offer you any money in exchange for giving the features that meet the needs of his for-profit company priority over the features you would have done first otherwise?

        This is where the "you're being used" situation sets in. They're not really "stealing" from you, but he's politely asking you to do something that makes him money, and offering only a "Thank you!" (followed by a wisper of "SUCKER!") in return.
    • Is Henry V .009 stealing gasoline? Do we have any proof that he isn't? I think we should have this before we consider his posts.

      (And yes, this bit of silliness is just to remind people that accusing others of unsubstantiated wrongdoing is not a particularly persuasive strategy.)

      Lindows is not obligated to provide me with source code, but the last I heard they had an online repository idenitified in their distributed media. It wasn't working quite right, but they were aware of that and fixing it.

      • Re:First things first - Henry V siphoning gas? (Score:5, Informative)

        by XaXXon ( 202882 ) <xaxxon&gmail,com> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:57PM (#5109921) Homepage
        Excuse me, but you should probably do your homework.

        The original poster didn't claim that Lindows wasn't distributing source, only that people should look in to it. The idea is valid, as Lindows was known to previously break the GPL by not making source available. They claimed it was only for their "beta" period, but the GPL doesn't allow this in any form.

        You, on the other hand, are making something up completely out of the blue. Even if he was stealing gasoline, this has no relevance to the point the oringal poster was trying to make. Lindows not distributing source code, on the other hand, is directly related to Lindows not being a team player, which is the point of the article the comment was made on.

        Saying people are making logical falicies by making a logical falicy is rather hypocritical, in my mind -- and just bad form, too.
      • I asked a question. I made no accusations. However, if you'd like me to justify even posing question, Lindows has violated the GPL in the past: http://www.lindowsos.info/print.php?sid=16

  • Lindows in a Linux World (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gh0ul ( 71352 ) <jdfmcok&gmail,com> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:34PM (#5109761) Homepage Journal
    Lindows was started with hopes to get big and blast in to the Linux community with open arms.. for the majority of the first year or more not many give them any credit. Now Lindows is signing contracts here or there, putting copies on cheap walmart PC's, and to themselves they are on top of the world right now. Lindows should be careful about stressing things when they are still "so new", as it could seriously proove bad later on.

  • Similar to any one we all know? (Score:5, Funny)

    by aboyce ( 444334 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:35PM (#5109766)
    From the company who brought you Lindows, comes Licrosoft like management decisions.

  • Pride goeth... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:38PM (#5109789) Homepage
    ...before a fall (whu is it spelled "goeth"?)

    I really think Lindows is going to lose the trademark tussle with Microsoft over the name. Not only does Microsoft have nearly infinite legal resources, but I think here they may actually be right (and that's from a Mac user). Unless they've lost control of the windows name themselves, entirely possible from what I've heard -- Microsoft has no lack of hubris and is overdue for a stumble or more.

    Good think Apple never got arrogant. Oh, wait.... But they felll big time, and I think it was a good thing, if only because it drew Jobs back like the second coming, and vested him with unilateral power to match. He's proud but smart. Like Gates. If their positions were reversed, hmmm....

    Stop chuckling Linux-heads. Power/pride corrupts, your turn may come. :)

    • Re:Pride goeth... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pi_rules ( 123171 )
      Unless they've lost control of the windows name themselves,

      MS's naming schemes really get to me.

      First, they have an OS that displays windows on your screen. They call it Windows.

      They make a program to manage your money, and it's called Money.

      They make a SQL database server, and they call it SQL Server.

      They make a program that plays media, and it's called Media Player.

      I'm sure there are more examples too -- just ones I can think of off the top of my head. Ever had this discussion when your fellow IT workers before?

      "What are they using for a database?"

      "A sql server."

      "Which one?"

      "SQL Server.... you know, from MS."

      "Oh."

      Give me names like Informix, Postgres, and Oracle any day.

      Justin Buist

    • What? Double jeopardy?

      They already won the name fight. [techtv.com]

      I have a theory that money only helps so much when fighting legally. If both sides have a certain amount, then the side that is right is most likely to win.

      Of course, this isn't true if the issue in question matters to the judge or his constituents, but I don't think most judges care much about most software companies.
      • They already won the name fight. [techtv.com]

        That article refers to a ruling on Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction. The case is still in court. This more recent article [boston.com] says that a ruling could come "any day now".

  • Article correction (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:38PM (#5109793)
    ZDNet claims that Sun is no longer on the participant list, but they are [desktoplinuxsummit.org].

  • salem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:39PM (#5109800)
    A lot of people are rushing to judgement on this story. Wait until the dust settles and see what comes of it.
    Too many posts I have seen are obviously colored by the posters opinion rather than any known facts.
    • Michael Robertson has practiced tech-witchcraft for years, this is just the most recent example.

      The basic facts of this story are clear as day... Michael Robertson wanted to hold a conference, but he knew if he held it himself nobody would show up. So, he partners with a Linux news site that prides itself in maintaining indepenace from any specific vendor. That news site demands that they have a say in the control of the agenda if they are going to lend their credibility, and he agress. They draw up an agreed upon agenda... then suddenly Michael Robertson decides he wants to substitute one where he's the keynote. News site is now crying foul play as it pulls out, and several other participants are rethinking their plans as one-by-one others pull out. The only dust left to settle deals with who's still in and who's out.

      It might not be illegal, but it's certainly a mean thing to do. He's basically burning his credibilty with some major Open Source supporters all in exchange for the right to be keynote speaker at a trumped-up conference. It shows how little respect he has the Open Source community... and thefore the community doesn't like him much either.

      He's soiled his reputation with past bad acts, and this just added to the list.

  • So Lindows is acting like Microsoft. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:39PM (#5109801)
    Sorry, but is anyone surprised by this? They even NAMED THEMSELVES after a microsoft product....

  • Commercial Linux != Bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <be@@@eclec...tk> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:41PM (#5109813) Homepage Journal
    "Linux is going to takeover the desktop computer market and bring the empire of microsoft down!!" - Said a local linux enthusiast

    Here's the question of the day. How does linux takeover the desktop market if it doesn't become corperate in the sense that there is support and advertisement?

    Oh no, the evil MP3.com one of the most visited sites on the internet's former CEO is now the CEO of a Linux company, the travisty obviously this man cares not for the community but for his own pocketbook. Yet look at that... Lindows is the new hype word, even beats redhat in most not-in-the-know IT types.

    So lindows wants to start its own summit and doesn't want the other vendors to jump on their turf, is this surprising?

    • They have every right to do it, and DesktopLinux has every right (and, after reading the article, every reason) to withdraw its support.

      But, if they aren't willing to play nice with the other people in the Linux community, the other people in the Linux community won't play nice with them, and they will eventually fail.

  • How many people out there actually USE Lindows ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:42PM (#5109818)
    I see people saying that now Lindows is trying to play like it's a bid bad boy because they are supposedly popular. I want to understand how is that possible. When I browse the web, chat on IRC, participate in mailing lists, I see folk using all kind of distros. I see people using Redhat, Mandrake, Xandros, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo and god-know-what. But what makes me wonder is that I am yet to hear of a SINGLE PERSON actually USING Lindows for purposes other that reviewing.

    Can anyone provide any factual numbers of the amounts of Lindows users compared to the likes of Redhat, Debian and the like ? I am very interested.

    • Re:How many people out there actually USE Lindows (Score:5, Informative)

      by radon28 ( 593565 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:55PM (#5109911)
      But what makes me wonder is that I am yet to hear of a SINGLE PERSON actually USING Lindows for purposes other that reviewing.

      i think the question is "Who would admit to using Lindows?", but thats another point. Linux Counter [li.org] reports that, out of 115,886 submitted values, there are 8 distros in use, none of which are Lindows, which must be in the "Others" department, which takes up 13.13% of the share. Those 8 (in order of usage): Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Slackware, SuSE, Conectiva, "diy", and Debian sid. Then again, would your average Lindows user even know or care about something like Linux Counter? -- While you're there, fill out a reg form.

      • That only tells you who is going to go there and do that, and its a rather slow indication of the popularity of a distro because of how popularity takes hold. Also, some distros are going to have more zealots than others ("Everybody! Go to linuxcounter and prove to the world that our distro is the most popular!").

        A faster indication is from distrowatch [distrowatch.com]. The difference here is that the number of people INTERESTED in the distro determine the popularity.

        Here's their actual stats [distrowatch.com] (and though I hate to admit it, Lindows is holding strong at #9).
    • Lindows is pre-installed on computers sold at WalMart aimed at people looking for the cheapest possible new computer.

      For the most part...

      Those people don't chat on IRC

      They don't even know what a mailing list is

      They are not going to be visiting technical sites for pleasure

      Many of these people aren't even going to know what "Linux" is.

      That's the point!
      • I use LindowsOS about 50% of the time. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. I bet a lot of these folks haven't even tried using it. It is stable and is mainly Debian. Lindows has made some tweaks to KDE but, the Click-N-Run is a nice feature. I think the entire Linux community should agree on a packaging/installation system! It is terribly complex for non-technical users. I can do things in the console or I can stay in KDE... so, I'm pretty happy with it. The installer is excellent and the hardware detection is pretty good. I've had a few small problems but was able to find solutions pretty fast because Debian is a popular distro. I don't regret spending the money on it. I hope Linux on the desktop really does take off! I support Xandros too and I have it running on my other machine.
    • I do the speedtouchconf.sf.net script for configuring the Alcatel USB Modem under Linux. I've had about 20 different people contact me so far about it - mainly problems they've had with it, many of which are my mistakes. The modem in question is obscure enough to get little enough interest, but of thost 20 (ish), two were LindowsOS users, who were missing the gcc and make utilites required. Being Debian-based, they could "apt-get install gcc" and were happy enough. I don't like Lindows' attitude, but the OS seems - from this brief acquantance-by-proxy - enough like Debian not to matter, from a developer's point of view. I can give the same advice to a LindowsOS user as to a Debian user. At that level, it suits me fine. One interpretation of these figures would be to say that 10% of Linux / Alcatel USB Modem users are on LindowsOS; I suspect this would be inaccurate, and that the LindowsOS users are maybe rather less used to Linux than users of other distro's, so the 10% is disproportionate because of that fact.
    • I have a friend who used it briefly on the machine it came preloaded on. But when he realized it was rigged so he couldn't use any source code without geting gcc, glib, and god-knows-what-else installed, he wiped it and went through several distributions before landing on (ugh) Caldera.
  • There must be something about products whose name ends with 'indows'...
  • This doesn't seem all that out of place to me. Lindows never really seemed to have the true Linux spirit. I really wanted to try their product but not for $99, when I could have gotten a better but now defunct Mandrake distro for free. Of course this is taking for granted that the changes they made were terrible, but the article gives very little mention of what specific changes were made. Besides the change of the keynote speaker no mention is made of what other things were changed. For all I know they changed the break treats to peanuts from sweet rolls. Yeah it was dumb of Lindows to do this without any kind of forewarning, but to pull out of the conference completely? I think both parties are a bit at fault here.


    • > Yeah it was dumb of Lindows to do this without any kind of forewarning, but to pull out of the conference completely? I think both parties are a bit at fault here.

      Not unless Lehrbaum is lying when he says he only entered the conference on the basis of an agreement, which Robertson just unilaterally discarded.

      \meethinks Lindows is going to end up paying out some other vendors' expenses in small claims court.

  • The fact that when one vendor does something that i dont agree with i can take my business somewhere else without the blink of an eye. I think this is linux biggest strength. You can choose whatever dist you like and still get the same thing but wrapped in another context. No vendor lockin keeps the vendors on their toes and the ones not collaborating dissapears into oblivion or change their ways fast.
    • The fact that when one vendor does something that i dont agree with i can take my business somewhere else without the blink of an eye.

      Unfortunately you are locked in to your vendor to a degree. If you had a callcenter full of RH desktop's, it would not be trivial to up and convert them all to debian. It's not even worth debating - just put yourself in that situation and you'll definitely do more than "blink".
      • Its not that hard at all. Not worse than any other major upgrade of the systems. Compare it to switching from Windows to Mac and it gets a whole other perspective.

      • Actually (Score:2)

        by Synn ( 6288 )
        It would be fairly trivial.

        If they were servers, just convert them over slowly as part of an upgrade process.

        If they're desktop boxes, you just flash new hard drive images onto them. Your users wouldn't know the difference. If you have power users with non-imagable machines, you just upgrade them later when you're doing some other upgrade on their box(ie, when Red Hat goes out of date and you need to upgrade anyway).

        There are very very few differences between Linux distributions.

  • Some show... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:49PM (#5109872) Homepage Journal
    ...the expected attendance is 600 people. Max.

    -Rusty

  • Lindows doesn't want programmers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thinkliberty ( 593776 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:59PM (#5109935)
    "Lindows spokeswoman Cheryl Schwartzman said the company wanted to concentrate on desktop Linux for customers who'll use it, not for programmers who'll develop it." That tells me that Lindows just wants to take from the programmers who make the programs and give them nothing in return. Not even speaking time at a conference. They just want our programs to charge users 99 dollars a year to download them and flip us the bird. Maybe the next program I create will GPLL. Meaning it's GPL'ed less than Lindows. Lindows can't distribute my program or use any of my code. Don't piss on the people that made/makes your product Lindows.
    • Maybe the next program I create will GPLL. Meaning it's GPL'ed less than Lindows. Lindows can't distribute my program or use any of my code.

      Um, yeah...
      6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
      Uh, that's the GPL. It's not Free if you say that Lindows can't use it. What's the use in that?
    • OK so let me get this sraight. The GPL is designed so that people can essentially distribute the GPL'd code with their own product. The idea is "freedom". However, once a company desides to excersise that freedom in a way that's not in line with your utopian concept of coding for [essentially] free, you want to take that freedom away from them? Why not just code commercial software? That way you don't have to worry about people taking your work and profiting off of it. Just a thought.
    • They just want our programs to charge users 99 dollars a year...

      Personally, I'm a little upset by the way that Lindows dealt with this conference, and if I had been planning to go, I'd abort those plans. But I really don't care one way or the other about Lindows making money off of Debian, even though I contribute to Debian, and they're probably charging money for packages I built. That's how things go in the free software world.

      Maybe the next program I create will GPLL. Meaning it's GPL'ed less than Lindows. Lindows can't distribute my program or use any of my code.

      That would violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org], in particular, point 6. So you'd also, effectively be forbidding Debian from including your program.

      Of course, maybe that's what you want (since Lindows is based on Debian), but somehow, I doubt it. A smarter move, IMO, would be to publicize info on how Lindows users can get free updates by editing /etc/apt/sources.list to point to Debian's servers.

      But in general, I think your argument is silly -- if you don't want random people to be able to make money off of your software, without giving you anything in return, then don't write free software. It's as simple as that. And if you do write free software, then accept the fact that some people will use it without giving anything in return. Debian does.
  • Might as well use all the pressure tactics as well!

  • Ack...my namesake again. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Chymaera ( 607989 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:23PM (#5110066)
    You have no idea how deeply this offends all us other Michael Robertson's. We would like to issue a collective apology for our kinsman, who seems to have given us a a bad name. Appropriate actions will be taken to silence him. -Michael Robertson

  • I've said it before, I'll say it again: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MsGeek ( 162936 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:27PM (#5110091) Homepage Journal
    Lycoris [lycoris.com]. It's a real Linux that plays by the rules. Lycoris is Lindows done right. Well, mostly right...I'd like to see them incorporate things like Open Office into the main distro instead of selling them separately as a "productivity pack." Oh yeah, Lycoris doesn't have you login as root all the time like Lindows does...eew.

    Another bonus about Lycoris over Lindows: a damn fine user community [lycoris.org]. Oh yeah, and Joseph Cheek isn't an asshole like Michael Robertson is. ;-)

  • Why use washable ink? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:03PM (#5110283)
    I think Lindows is on the shortcut to loserville with the Linux community at large. At many different times they've seemed to take the fruits of what Linux users and developers have contributed to the system as a whole and then turned right around and mooned them. At every opertunity Michael Robertson has seen fit to present his ass to the public which his company relies on for their product development. I'd much rather hear Bruce Perens wax philosophic about Linux and Open Source than hear Mike R. pimp Lindows.

    One thing that has bothered me a lot about Lindows is the fact they charge $99 for a subscription to their software distribution service (apt-get). It doesn't bother me they are selling a subscription service at all, the thing that gets to me is they are using the public Debian servers and not providing their own. People pay $99 to access a service Lindows has absolutely no afiliation with and does not seem to support in the slightest. The only program repository I can actually find that they house themselves is their FTP site with their patches and whatnot on it.

    Lindows is the MP3.com of the Linux world. It is riding the Linux hype wave as far as it can while shafting anyone contributing to it. Where MP3.com shafted the artists providing the site's content, Lindows is shafting the Linux developer providing the distro's content. Where MP3.com has horrible contractual terms Lindows pillages public servers and donation funded development efforts.

    Hopefully Lindows will decide to play nice as a community member which they become by default when entering the Linux distro business. There is a Linux community that exists, it isn't just open source zealot preach talk. Companies wanting to interact with this community need to follow its often times quirky social rules and behave as proper community members. I don't really see Lindows doing this at all. It's a shame seeing them pull this stuff because there's a lot of people who will never know the difference between Lindows and any other distro, they'd be hard pressed to tell you why Lindows is not the same as Windows. All these people will do is make Lindows successful at the cost of the people developing Linux software or housing it for distribution.
    • Lindows is more or less exploiting a security hole in the GPL.

      There's simply no way to modify a GPL project and then distribute it without being able to prevent it from falling into Lindow's hands, and there is no way to compell Lindows to give anything back to the community either.

      At least Bill Gates bothers to pay his developers...
    • I think Lindows is on the shortcut to loserville with the Linux community at large.

      While I agree with your position that Lindows is freeloading from the work of Linux developers, it's important to note that the success of Lindows will not be determined by the Linux community. Lindows is the unfortunate byproduct of the GPL (dioxin and ricin come to mind as other unfortunate byproducts), a commercial entity that skirts the spirit of free software by riding on the backs of those who have invested sweat equity .

      It's my opinion that the best way to make sure Lindows becomes a long-forgotten entity is to carefully police their distributions, and cut them off at the knees when they distribute code in violation of the GPL. It will happen; it's only a matter of time. The biggest mistake the Linux community can make is to do nothing and hope Lindows just goes away. Stable poisons like dioxin and Lindows don't go away on their own; they'll persist until something proactive is done to eradicate them.

    • They have their own, security-controlled repository at http://software.lindows.com/ (the repository appears empty until a properly authenticated Click-N-Run request is received, at which point the server gives only the files needed for that install).

      If you're going to bash someone, at least get the facts straight. CNR version 0.90 might've used Debian's servers, but that was an alpha test version. Version 3.0 is very very very different.

  • I too _was_ a speaker... (Score:5, Informative)

    by sagei ( 131421 ) <<gro.evolr> <ta> <evolr>> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:12PM (#5110314) Homepage
    I was scheduled to give a talk on "The Kernel and the Desktop" at the Desktop Linux Summit and I formally withdrew on Thursday after having a discussion with the involved parties due to the issues discussed in these news articles. The behavior shown - especially the treatment of Bruce - is not acceptable.

    I, uh, bet there will be more dropouts over the next couple days - Lindows is not cool.
    • Your talk seems to conflict with the "new agenda" at face value... notice this paragraph from the CNET story [com.com].

      "Lindows spokeswoman Cheryl Schwartzman said the company wanted to concentrate on desktop Linux for customers who'll use it, not for programmers who'll develop it. "If you want to talk about the Linux kernel, this is not the conference for you," she said. "

      There's no way he's going to be able to build a user-centered convention like MacWorld around his operating system at this stage in the game. The object of this whole charade was to get Open Source supporters to book their tickets with the bait of a vendor-neutral conference on his dime, then switch it to a pro-Lindows circus instead.

  • Big surprise (Score:3, Informative)

    by sparkie ( 60749 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:27PM (#5110371) Homepage
    Back when lindows started I subscribed to the insiders program. I was wholly unimpressed with Lindows as a whole. Then the big lawsuit from Microsoft came down and Robertson had a reply 'CEO to CEO' to Bill Gates. The reply from Robertson basically stated that he was going to sell Lindows to a discriminated market, and that it would be impossible for people to confuse Windows with Lindows. However, not six months later was Lindows being sold at Wal-Mart, which in my personal and professional opinion is most certainly _not_ an outlet that sells to a discriminated audience. Not to mention later on WinE was removed from the distribution. That's a whole other story however. It just comes as no big shock that Robertson is playing games again later on.

  • Lindows is a good distribution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jadavis ( 473492 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:36PM (#5110401)
    Lindows has always given me a little bit of a bad feeling, but I've never really been able to identify anything really wrong with them. Sure, the CEO does some weird things, and even makes some people mad. But whatever they do doesn't even compare to many other businesses from which we buy software.

    Beyond that, Linodws is a good distribution. Very easy install, and sensible defaults for an ex-windows user. More importantly, debian lies beneath the whole thing, and the debian servers are (by default) set in sources.list. That means you have everything a world-class server distro has, yet a nice interface for a beginner.

    I administer some servers, and recently one of my coworkers decided to really get linux installed. I recommended lindows because it is easy to install, and sure enough, he got it up and running. I also offered Mandrake as an alternative, but it was just a little more difficult to work with and install new software. Also, I didn't know enough about RPM to help him out.

    The $99 click-n-run service seems like a perfectly acceptable business model to me. It's working for my coworker, and doesn't even slow down the way I might go about installing software (apt-get). I would probably change it to run as a non-root user also, but a new user probably finds it easiest to just use root. Lindows is not too insecure, I might add, because it doesn't install all kinds of servers.

    I wouldn't choose lindows for myself, but it seems like a damn good way to get started to me.
    • I wouldn't choose lindows for myself, but it seems like a damn good way to get started to me.

      But, of course, you are a person who does not percieve any problems with running as root.
      It's not about the services you provide (many of them run as root on any *nix system, though this is changing)
      It's about the user-level apps you use ("Download this file to /etc/passwd? [ YES | NO ]") - there tend to be more of these, and less well-scrutinised (how many people are concerned about Apache running as root, compared to how many are concerned about mIRC running as root?)
      If I download and use some stupid app which tries to rewrite /etc/passwd, it will fail unless I'm logged in as root. The root account should *only* be used to run totally trusted applications. I am happy using Phoenix as a user - it's development, may crash, could even wipe my files (I download the binary, not the source) but it can't kill my machine, let alone make it a part of a DDoS attack.
      Installing software as root should be done by a qualified system administrator only. Installing software in /home/luser/ is done at luser's own risk.

    • sensible defaults...

      I just laughed Dr. Pepper up my nose! Ow ow ow Ooooh what a rush...

      Where was I? Oh yeah.

      ...for an ex-windows user.

      Glad you tagged on that modifier. For ex-Windows users, automatically booting into passwordless root accounts could very well be a sensible default.

  • What President of Lindows Had to say about this... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:45PM (#5110433)
    I am a Lindows.com Insider. I have cut and pasted the post the President of Lindows.com made on our forums. Here it is:

    We had contracted with one of the employees of Desktoplinux.org (they only have a couple) to pay them to help out with organizing A FEW PARTS of the summit. Without going into great detail, let's just say this relationship ended up being unworkable. Due, perhaps from some bad communication on our part, this person became upset with some of the decisions being made about the summit. (We wanted a consumer, media-friendly event, not a technical, developer's conference.) Based on early misunderstandings, this person unfortunately had made promises to vendors without our final approval and had promised speaking slots. When the agenda came up for final approval (the first time Michael or I even saw it), we made changes to make it have more of a mass-market slant. The changes we made put this person in an awkward position with some people. We told this person that we would take full responsibility for the misunderstandings and to blame us if anyone was disappointed.

    In the end, it was simply a bad fit and this person was simply not the appropriate ambassador for the summit as we envisioned it. (It's hard to sell something you yourself don't believe in.) Therefore, we stopped contracting with this individual and used other people who LOVED the summit as we had planned it.

    As for this notion of "vendor neutrality," Lindows.com was NOT in anyway trying to turn the Summit into a "Lindows.com Show." Anyone who attended Wineconf or an MP3 Summit (both events also sponsored by Michael) know he's not like that. One look at the agenda and it's pretty obvious this is a show about how COOL LINUX IS ON THE DESKTOP, not about Lindows.com. Besides, Linux is so much more than distros. It's about office suites (Sun), applications (Kompany), printers (HP), tablets (StepUp), Games (Transgaming), hardware (Microtel), and on and on... Lindows.com doesn't even compete with 95% of the vendors at the show. We DO plead guilty that we VERY MUCH were making sure the summit stayed a show with MASS MARKET appeal, but the notion that we wanted to turn it into a Lindows.com show is simply ridiculous. (Go view the wineconf or 4 years of mp3 summit videos to see for yourself.)

    This is the sort of wacky "drama" that has plagued Linux for far too long and makes Microsoft laugh at Linux. Fortunately we, as we always do, will remain above this. The only reason I'm even making this post is because this thread asked for a response.

    We'll have a packed house and it's going to be a great show. If you look at the agenda, you'll see it's the interesting, consumer-focused type of show Linux needs to start moving into the mainstream markets.

    Kevin

    • An addition to this post (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:50PM (#5110449)
      I am a Lindows Member too... and here is some more information that was given after the post above:

      Here's an update on the latest with the Summit...

      As of this evening, the following changes have been confirmed to the Summit's sponsor/exhibitor list:

      Deletions:
      - HP
      - Questnet
      - the Kompany

      Additions:
      -Epson
      -Earthlink
      -Bitstream
      -Cer berian
      -CentralCommand
      -Hancom
      -GridIQ
      -Brobec k
      -SpeakEasy
      -MP3.com
      -Photogenics
      -GarageGame s

      As for the issue with the Keynote. Michael was ALWAYS slated to be the Keynote. It was this person from desktoplinux.org who promised it to Bruce Perens. (Michael and I had no idea about this!) It was NOT Michael who insisted HE be the Keynote speaker. That was ME! I have heard Michael speak on several occasions and I have also heard Bruce Perens. No offense to Bruce, but he's just not a very dynamic public speaker, ESPECIALLY for a consumer-type conference. As I have said, this summit is about the ability for Linux to move to the mass markets. I think everyone will agree, that is Michael Robertson's area of expertise, not Bruce's. I can't think of anyone who has championed the ideal of taking Linux to the masses more than Michael. He has the arrows in his back from the traditional Linux crowd to prove it! Bruce fired a few more in this week. =)

      For the record, we offered Bruce the prime spot of closing the summit, but he said he didn't want to speak at all. That was his choice.

      Michael Robertson was always the Keynote speaker at the annual MP3 Summit's, and did a great job. These summits were always very successful and no one ever accused MP3.com of not being fair to the many other vendors who attended the MP3 Summits.

      Finally, of the 25 speakers suggested to us by the "panel," (Michael and I didn't even know there WAS such a panel!) we included 19.

      As is obvious from the above changes, the show is only growing in status and support, not dwindling.

      Kevin

      • You've got to be kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:30PM (#5110576) Homepage Journal
        It's a common tactic for the bully to portray themselves as the oppressed party. I am firing arrows into poor Michael Robertson's back!!!! I am blowing a whistle, for a good reason.

        No, nobody offered me the closing spot. But people from Lindows have been saying a number of things that aren't connected with reality. It's very strange.

        My participation in the conference has been publicized for months, so I don't understand how Lindows would not have known that the person they hired to set up the conference had put me in the keynote position. That person is a long-time participant in Linux business whose integrity should not be questioned. And anyway, since she was working for Lindows, if you are to believe them entirely unsupervised for months, they need to take responsibility for the work she did - which had no problem.

        Regarding their comments about my public speaking prowess - both Michael and I were on NPR the other day, and the broadcast archive is at sciencefriday.com . Judge for yourself. But they have been saying this about anyone they moved into a panel slot (those are all very short) or otherwise rejected - they seem to all be bad speakers. Most of the people they say the advisory board asked for were moved into panel slots.

        We want Lindows on the team, but as a team player. It's their right to hold a party and call all of the shots. But they can't expect us all to come to the party on their terms.

        Bruce

      • I, too, am a Lindows insider.

        You two: We've had our eye on you for some time. We gave you special versions of these documents with coded keyword sequences which enable us to trace their sources.

        Thank you for your previous effors on our behalf. Please have your desks cleaned out by the close of the business day.

        Just kidding. :)
        GMFTatsujin

  • Arrows (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Seems to me that Michael Robertson is the one person who understands where the real fight is here. He's the one person I see who has the balls to take on MS and doesn't back down.

    Shame he has to fight with all those arrows from the Linux community in his back.

    It's like he's trying to drag Linux into the next generation, the next wave, the next level with the masses, and Linux is kicking and screaming "We don't want to go!"

    Sid

  • I'm All For Desktop Linux, But Lindows Is Ominous (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:05PM (#5110500)
    It doesn't appear as if Micheal Robertson and Lindows are exactly embracing the spirit or the letter of Open Source / GPL.

    Others have asked whether Lindows complies with the GPL and provides source code. If you happen to have already paid them money and noted the IP address of the FTP server where insiders can download source, then I guess they provide source code. If however you go to http://www.lindows.com/ you will not find a Download button or references to source code. A search for "source code" in the "Warehouse" field takes you a list of things that LOOK like they can be downloaded, but just try it. You get dragged into something called "Click n' Run" that works more like porn web site voting lists, constantly cycling you back to pages where you can buy a download membership for $99 or if you're a programmer, another membership for $299.

    If you not have a Click-n-Run membership and you are not already running Lindows OS, then they offer 3 options:
    1. Purchase the membership for $99
    2. Purchase a PC from WalMart and then sign up for Click-n-Run
    3. Join their "Insider Program" for $299

    Micheal Robertson's goal appears to be to build a business and make a lot of money by leveraging the hard work of a large number of GPL contributors. That's fine, and it scares Microsoft, which is even better. What troubles me is the direction that Micheal is moving to do it, which sure looks like just another corporate grab of a bunch of free stuff and an unwillingness to give back. I sure hope I'm missing something here.

    • Just remember that Lindows is not, according to the GPL, required to provide source code to the world. They're required to provide source code to anyone who they distribute a product based upon GPL'd software to. Since their product is only available via purchase, they're allowed to restrict access to the source code to only those who've purchased their product.

      They're not, of course, allowed to prohibit you from redistributing the GPL-software-derived parts of their distribution, and the accompanying source code, after you've purchased it. They can only put that restriction on the parts that they created that aren't touched by the GPL.

  • This is why Microsoft is not worried about Linux in the short-term. The members of the Linux community are busy fighting themselves while heading in no clear direction. I've heard it said that: "Lindows is A choice... not THE choice". There are lots of distros to choose from. If you don't like Lindows -- fine! Don't run it. But, what good does it do to attack Lindows (another Linux distro) when everyday Microsoft sells more operating systems than anyone on the planet?

    Who cares if distro ABC is better than distro XYZ!?!? Why do we have to constantly fight ourselves. The only way that Linux will ever go mainstream is by focusing on the needs of end users. Who cares what other distros think? Who cares what other developers think? The goal is to get the end users to switch to Linux! If we continue to fight about petty bullshit this will never happen. And Microsoft is laughing all the way to the bank.
    • First, the reason for our existence is not to destroy Microsoft, or even to displace them from the desktop. If you want to do that, it's fine, just please don't expect everybody to thank you for it.

      Second, this community works when we do things together. The reason there's a dispute now is that somebody doesn't want to play that way. So, we will have a much larger, better, and authentic summit next time, in conjunction with one of the established Linux shows, and it will be run fairly.

      Bruce

  • Ira Flatow Saw This Coming (Score:4, Informative)

    by bombdotcom ( 85138 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @10:01PM (#5110714)
    This is very interesting. Just yesterday Ira Flatow had both Bruce Perens and Michael Robertson on his show, Science Friday [sciencefriday.com]. Bruce is actually a pretty cool guy, I expected him to be more militant and opinionated for some reason. He kind of reminds me of Emo Phillips.

    Bruce made a very artful dodge when asked whether Lindows was any good. He basically acknowledged that it was good to have another group working on making Linux better but he diplomatically avoided saying anything good about Lindows.

    You can listen to the show in Real format here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2003/Jan/hour1_ 011703.html [sciencefriday.com]

  • Lindows == MS of Linux? (Score:3, Informative)

    by kien ( 571074 ) <kien@memberELIOT.fsf.org minus poet> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @10:29PM (#5110852) Journal

    It's not about the politics or the philosophy, but about affordable Linux products available to consumers today.

    Wrong answer, Mike. Politics be damned, this is all about philosophy.

    This statement from Roberston is very revealing. It says (to me) that beancounters are beginning to invade the GNU/Linux movement. Props to Bruce Perens and HP for refusing to support the philosophy that equates GNU/Linux users to mindless consumers in the name of winning the desktop war.

    Am I alone in my belief that the problem is uneducated, uninformed, apathetic computer users?

    --K.
  • That's one thing I always think when open source / linux advocates bash Microsoft. I think "you know, given the same amount of power, I feel pretty confident damn near anyone would start to use it to their advantage.", doesnt matter if its Microsoft, Adobe, RedHat, Lindows, you name it. As you grow, you gain momentum. To sustain the growth, and fullfill the desire to gain power and authority, humans simply DO things like this. They write the standards, they hold more of their cards closer to their chest, they become proprietary, they heavy hand others. It's just the way it works.

    Has no one seen Lord of the Rings?

Slashdot Top Deals

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Close