Crossing the Desktop Linux Chasm in San Diego (Linux Journal)
But, y'know, Lindows paid for this whole thing, apparently. So they have a reason to want the event the way they want it. I just wish they didn't call it the Linux Desktop Summit, because it's not really one any more. Actually, they never wanted it to be what we consider a summit in the Linux world."
Posted Feb 4, 2003 6:54 UTC (Tue)
by satai (guest, #1376)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 4, 2003 11:55 UTC (Tue)
by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
[Link]
As I see it the long-term value from this business model will probably be picked up by most ISPs who will want to conserve external network traffic by providing fast and efficient free software distribution/updates to their own customers from their own mirrors.
I used to be a Lindows basher. I used to resent the way they strutted around, acting Crossing the Desktop Linux Chasm in San Diego (Linux Journal)
like they owned the place -- and to some extent, yeah, I still feel the same way. But I
think that my irritation has been tempered -- I still have real issues with the way
they choose to do business, but I don't think that I feel as strongly as before.
I maintain that selling a distribution that is fairly stripped down in order to promote
a subscription service for software is a bit... well, crass. I'm leery of Lindows, because
I think that introducing users to this version of Linux, covered in layers upon layers
of commercialism, distances the user from the community. A poster to slashdot
remarked that the difference between the Linux community and the Windows
community is real because the Windows community is trapped by money, and
restrictions, and all the other problems that come with proprietary software.
Emulating that business atmosphere is not a step forward, no matter how many
users switch to Linux from Windows.
From a philosophical standpoint, converting users from one proprietary operating
system to another is not a success. Converting Windows users from Windows to
Lindows may or may not be a moral victory; time will tell, as the Lindows community
develops. If the Lindows community grows to enjoy Freedom, then that would be a
good and just goal. But if the end result is to foster new business models, and
restrict users through overt and subtle tactics, that is a net loss to the existing
community.
I'm willing to give Lindows a chance; they may succeed where others have not, in
bringing Linux "to the masses." But time will tell if they bring Linux, and Free
Software, or just the Lindows way of doing business.
I don't see anything unethical in Lindows current policy. If they are able to bring a less technically proficient group of users into using Linux and make money by supporting this by charging for distribution of free (as in freedom not as in price) software (by making this easier to obtain/configure/install) I think most of us would like to see this. I don't see any real problems with this given that if they succeed they will soon have many competitors offering similar, if slightly differentiated products. That's the whole point of free as in freedom software - not that it has to be free as in price but the fact any competitor can distribute and support it within the license terms.Crossing the Desktop Linux Chasm in San Diego (Linux Journal)