[KLUG Members] Lindows backs down + I told you so

[Adam Williams]

>>I love to say, "I told you so"
>>Lindows is backing off from the claim that its Linux distro runs
>>most  Windows software.
>I know a few people that have run the pre-release of Lindows and love the
>way that it will run M$ Office and other M$ products.  It was also really
>easy for them to install and setup.  I have not tried it yet but am
>looking forward to a chance to sometime when I am not sooooo busy.
>>http://lwn.net/Articles/2658/
>>Na Na Na Na Na
>I know that there are some problems with GPL legal issues 

There maybe issues with the GPL.  One can certainly add proprietary 
modules to the kernel, etc... without obligation of releaseing source 
code.  I think the current issue is the lack of ANY source code,  the GPL 
requires that source code be made available for GPL'd components / 
packages.  A simple FTP site would resolve this issue.

>and then there is the ever popular run as root issue.  

I wouldn't dismiss this so lightly.  Your making root access to a "UNIX" 
kernel basically available to the world (assuming your on broadband).  You 
now become every script-kiddies dream-come-true,  as your PC becomes the 
source of DOS attacks, scans, and who know what else.  Cracking your basic 
WinY2k workstation is rather boring,  although nefarious.  Cracking a full 
fledged Linux box gives you easy access to real technology.  Not only may 
your data be gone,  but the police may come knocking on your door.

>I think that it is time
>for the Linux community to wake up to some economic facts though. 
>There needs to be some sort of cash flow to continue the work.  

This issue has been hashed out on the advocacy list several time.  This 
assertion is spurious.  

A.) Cash collected by Lindows won't do jack to fund Open Source projects.  
B.) There are lots of companies MAKING money peddling Open Source.  Just not 
the big names.  
C.) Software developement, for commerical sale, is RARELY profitable,  the 
money is in the support.  Lots of companies exist to support Open Source 
projects - PostgreSQL.COM, OpenNMS.COM, the people who develope Asterisk 
fund developement via support, etc...   It is just a different model.
D.) Closing Open Source in order to fund Open Source is an oxymoron.  The 
continued developement of Open Source depends upon the integration of may 
project,  closing projects will only inhibit progress.

>Lindows has a great installer for prepackaged software (Can you 
>red carpet express?) then that will be a big help. 

Sure, and I subscribe (and pay for) red carpet express,  in which case the 
money does actually go to developing Open Source projects. 

>I can see people paying for that service. One of the biggest problems I 
>have with people is getting them to be able to install software.  If
>Linux is going to penetrate the desktop market then software install has
> to be MUCH easier!!!

Easier than red carpet?  That is pretty hard to imagine.  As for 
installing the distro,  thats another matter.  Most people never (and 
can't) install M$-Windows, it comes on their PC pre-installed. Installing 
Windows ****BITES****!  RH72+ is way easier, hands down.

>>I would also hope that they have made configuring things like screen
>resolution much easier.  This is a real bear.... escpecially in Red
>Hat!!!!!  I can do it but I also have a decade and a half of computer
>network engineering experience behind me.  

I'll give you part of that, X can be dreadful.  But it has been along time 
since Xconfigurator didn't detect a card in a machine I was using.  I've 
spent countless hours trying to shoe horn in what I know is the correct 
video driver into Windows, only to have it restart with "Your display 
settings are incorrect".

Where on stands on this depends greatly on ones personal experience.

>I think that the biggest place that Linux needs to focus on for 
>desktop takeover is the corporate market.  Some people need to start
>up companies to install and manage Linux solutions for companies
>(start with virtical markets) where they would go in and setup the
>servers, terminals, software, and train the personnel.  

Unique Systems have presented a couple of times at KLUG, they do exactly 
that.  There are also several Linux Point-Of-Sale companies.

>Then they
>could offer to be the companies (this would be for small to medium
>companies of which there are a ton in west michigan) IS/Help Desk
>department.  

Again: Unique Systems.

* I have no financial affiliation with Unique Systems whatsoever.

>With Linux it would be easy to remotely manage the
>system.  They would also do the initial training of employees in how
>to run the system.  It MUST be easy and well designed for the
>companies to accept it.  Get one or two good installations for
>reference and you have the start of a VERY profitable business.  Your
>costs would be sooooo much less than the competition that you would
>win tons of bids!!!!  

There are reference implementations (Largo, etc...).  But none in this 
area AFAIK. :(

>After you become profitable, you should make it a point of starting
>to fund some of the software development that has made you so filthy
>rich.  

RedHat does this and they aren't profitable. :)  As does/is SGI.  IBM 
(very profitable) funds projects in spades.

>Send some $$$ to the developers of the accounting app, or the
>openoffice project, or Ximian, or Red Hat, etc.  This would stop up
>the financial "bleeding" of these companies so that they could stay
>around.  I have seen donation based business work in the Christian
>community and it could work here as well.  

Alot of that is going on,  I believe Glenn of Unique Systems said that 
they support/fund the projects them use.  The bleeding is also slowing,  
Redhat is *almost* profitable.  Things like Open Office simply aren't 
companies.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ximian GNOME, Evolution, LTSP, and RedHat Linux + LVM & XFS
-----------------------------------------------------------