[KLUG Members] New PC's without Windows? Say it ain't so! :-)

[Adam Williams]

>I agree with Bob. This is a bit fishy.

I followed the Lindows thing for awhile.  It isn't really fishy, just
stupid.  A whole pile of marketroids with a flimsy and gimmicky Linux
distribution.

>I am not passing judgement, but let me ask this: if one of
>the great ideas of Open Source is to have many eyes
>looking at the code, flushing out the bugs, etc., why
>would someone have to PAY to work FOR these folks? Isn't

Lindows is LINUX + some proprietary modifications / modules.  There are
bits of Lindows that are NOT open source.  Thats fine.

>that what it is if you have to join their club to get
>access to the OS? Actually, I can't even determine from
>their website whether you can actually get the OS code by
>becoming an "insider". With Linux, aren't we all supposed
>to be "insiders"? How about the idea of "release early,

If you search LWN you'll find articles concerning this issue.  Expect it
to get ugly.  Lindows simply has a very self-serving interpretation of
the GPL (see the reference above to marketroids).  Actually this could
go badly for  Linux.  Users hit them upside the head for licensing, and
M$ and brethren have a perfect case to say "See! Look what happens when
you use the GPL",  and if users let it slide the GPL is weakened.  I
don't like this at all.

>release often"? Where is that in their strategy? How do
>you know what is new, what is stable, etc. with this

It emulates Windows and depends upon WINE.  Any use of the term "stable"
is outright hilarious.  This will give thousands of 'innocent' users a
foul taste in there mouth concerning Linux.

>besides joining their club? I'm not much of a hacker, but
>I am an evangelist and power user. Why would they want to
>charge people like me (and most every Linux proponent I
>know) to test their product? Let me think about that for
>three dots...no.

To make money.  (See the reference above to marketroids).

>Besides that, is something that is 99% Windows compatible
>really the goal here? For me personally, I am after

Is it 99% Windows compatible?!  Not a whelp's chance in a super nova.

>complete freedom. 

They are banking on selling a cheap OS to compete with Windows.  The
average man-on-the-street doesn't give two bits about freedom,  he
certainly doesn't care enough to vote.

>Freedom to use or not use M$ products as
>I desire. I recognize Lindows could be a great
>ntroduction and transitional OS from Windows to Linux.

I recognize it as a dreadful turnoff to anyone suckered into using it. 
100% Windows compatible? Yeah, right.  Windows 2000 isn't 99% Windows
compatible.

>I'm not slighting that. But I daresay there are others out
>there who, like me, are after freedom. When I first heard

See the above reference to marketroids.

>of this Lindows, I thought hey, that's kinda neat. That'll

Nah, I thought..... "Aw Gawd,  there goes the neighborhood"

>be interesting to see. Having now seen some of their
>approach not just at their website, but their actual
>marketing of the product, I am rather miffed. It seems
>like it's not just giving in to the M$ standard, but
>saying you're not giving in while giving in. This just
>really doesn't sit well with me.

True, AND it won't work the way users expect.  

>And these are just some philisophical arguments. Bob raises
>the great point of legal ramifications in regards to the
>GPL. Talk about being a lone ranger, these folks are
>already in the firing line of Microsoft, and are probably
>teetering on the edge with the Linux community. This will
>be interesting to watch in the weeks ahead.

Actually M$ has already taken them to court and gotten trounced.  They
wrested the "Windows" trademark away from M$.