Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet)Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet)Posted Aug 5, 2003 22:03 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)Parent article: Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet) Very interesting read. Robertson has his head screwed on. I can't decide whether Lindows.com are a good thing or not. They contribute to some Free Software projects, but they also encourage their users to install proprietary software. I'd never use Lindows, but maybe they'll be a handy stepping stone towards the triumph of FreeSoftware-only OSs. Ciaran O'Riordan
(Log in to post comments)
Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet) Posted Aug 5, 2003 23:25 UTC (Tue) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] Er, choice works both ways. If a user chooses to use proprietary applications on a Free platform, who's to complain?
Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet) Posted Aug 5, 2003 23:58 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Er, choice works both waysWho mentioned choice? > If a user chooses to use proprietary applications on a Free It's better than proprietary on proprietary but not as good as Free on Free. I'm wondering whether Lindows.com are good for the community or not. They fund some free software and they could provide a stepping stone, but they also encourage people to use proprietary file formats (realplayer). This strengthens the position of proprietary software houses, and adds another brick to the wall that a realplayer replacement will have to climb. If all GNU/Linux users rejected proprietary software such as realplayer, they're would be a bigger incentive (target audience) for a Free streaming player with a Free file format. Lindows.com deadens this incentive a bit. Ciaran O'Riordan
Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet) Posted Aug 6, 2003 2:29 UTC (Wed) by philip (guest, #13710) [Link] I think you did when you wrote:"FreeSoftware-only OSs"
Choice Posted Aug 6, 2003 2:51 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] > Who mentioned choice?Freedom is about choice, right? I can choose to run fetchmail as it is, or I can choose to modify it. I'm free to choose. You complained about Lindows.com saying, "but they also encourage their users to install proprietary software." You didn't say "force them" so I inferred that the user had a choice whether or not to install proprietary software or not. Users are Free to use Free software on non-free platforms, non-free software on Free platforms... While I respect the FSF I do not care for criticism based on a political (by which I do not mean governmental politics, but philosophical) agenda. A big barrier to GNU/Linux adoption by users is the unavailability of their preferred proprietary software. Sure, they're politically incorrect for not making do with a Free alternative, but it's their choice. Someone comes along and offers a Free platform to the user AND the way for the user to run the proprietary software they prefer. I'd say this "someone" is helping the user excercise their rights to choose. Eventually, the user may discover a Free alternative that they prefer over the proprietary one. Or maybe they won't and they'll always want the non-free package. But this user is participating in the Free realm more so than if the door was shut in their face for purely political reasons. > This strengthens the position of proprietary software houses This is frankly backwards thinking. The unavailability of common packages (proprietary or not) hinders any use of Free platforms and THAT buttresses the position of proprietary software companies more than anything else. When people think that they can't view the media on their favorite websites or that their browser won't let them into a favorite site, or they can't read corporate documents correctly because they can't run the defacto standard business application for such documents they aren't enlightened to join the Free Software revolution, they just pony a few bucks to buy what they need and want and use their computer the way they choose. If you have a beef with content providers not supporting Free and Open formats, that's a different issue. But to discourage hybrid solutions that introduce people to the Free software realm due to a politically pure agenda is counter-productive. > If all GNU/Linux users rejected proprietary software such as realplayer "All GNU/Linux users" currently make up such a tiny number of computer users that they're not statistically significant to mainstream content providers. Google, the search engine choice of the technically savvy, indicates that only 1% of visitors to its site use Linux (Source: http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html). One percent. Moreover those having access to Linux most likely have access to Windows or MacOS as well, so mainstream content providers are under no obligation to support Linux users. But, if someone bridges the gap and provides what users want, which right now includes a lot of proprietary applications, the base platform number will dramatically increase. As that increase in the "installed base" occurs there will be an opportunity to transition these "bridged" users into totally Free software use -- if they choose. The need, then, is to perfect the alternatives to the proprietary systems to draw them away from proprietary solutions.
Choice Posted Aug 6, 2003 13:32 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Freedom is about choice, right?no. > I'm free to choose yes, you have permission to choose. That doesn't mean that the world must present you with options. You're also free to hate, but that doesn't mean that freedom is about hatred. Choice can be a freedom, or it can be a luxury. When I want to buy shoes, I currently have the freedom to buy shoes made in a developed nation, or shoes made in a sweatshop. I wish I didn't have this choice. I have permission to make this choice, but I don't think having the option to fund sweatshops is creating a free-er society. > I inferred that the user had a choice whether or not to Not really. The user had a choice between package-A and package-B. The issue of freedom was never presented. I take the rest of your points, it's not a black or white situation. You think the Lindows.com approach is good for Free Software in the end. I disagree.
Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet) Posted Aug 6, 2003 11:39 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Well, the way things are going, I am (sadly) unlikely to get "free on free" for what I want. And that's a DECENT word-processor. Forget about Word (spit) and the clones (OOo etc). They're just glorified letter writers.I'm a WordPerfect power user. And I think my only hope of getting a decent word processor on linux is when Corel smell the coffee and port it again. That said, if I can get WP8 working again, that's probably better than the current "rewritten and improved for Windows" crap ... Cheers,
Lindows CEO: Taking a bite from Microsoft (ZDNet) Posted Aug 6, 2003 13:12 UTC (Wed) by nowster (subscriber, #67) [Link] And I think my only hope of getting a decent word processor on linux If you don't want WYSIWYG there exists excellent typesetting software, and pretty front-ends for it.
|
|||||||||||