An open letter to Forrest Taylor of “A Thoroughly Different Review of Lindows” This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , 21 February 2004
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I recently read your review entitled “A Thoroughly Different Review of Lindows” and upon reading it, took exception with you lack of knowledge, integrity and obvious inability to use a search engine such as Google. In your article you take exception with Lindows, it's practices, and try to 'debunk' the Myths you believe that are bringing Lindows to the fore front of the desktop Linux market. My guess is that your intention is to get people to not use Lindows and move to some other Linux, which you may consider to be more 'pure' in it's Linux-ness. I'm not sure. I'm no mind reader, but based on articles, postings and ramblings of some of the half-crazed Linux zealots out there and the similarities between their babbling and yours, I hazard the above conjecture as an educated guess.
I am a Lindows user. I like Lindows and I like the company. I may not always agree with them on everything, but I have an understanding of their intentions and the direction which they are trying to go and I applaud their efforts. They have provided me with a product and an enjoyment in using my computer that I have not felt since I logged onto my first BBS back in 1991. As such, in appreciation of the efforts of the Lindows team, I've decided to take a stab at a rebuttal within the limited time that I have.
So, below are your Myths, what I think of them and what I was able to bring together while writing this letter. This is my first such effort, so hopefully, I don't make too many errors.
Myth: Lindows claims to be a Windows Emulator.
First and foremost, they do not. They did, at a time, attempt to integrate wine into Lindows. After discovering how difficult that could actually be, they decided to stop. So what? Since then, they have made no claims that they are a Windows Emulator. And since Wine is not an emulator, Lindows, including Wine, would have never been an emulator. The Lindows web page which you linked to describes, accurately, that in order to run what Windows programs will work on Linux you need Wine, your big complaint seems to be that there is a Myth that it will run Windows programs. While this was one time a goal, goals tend to change. Just because you can not keep up, doesn't mean that Lindows is at fault, especially when they provide a concise, clear cut, explanation as to why your misconception is incorrect.
Myth: The first AOL Computer
You point to a "Microsoft" NBC article that states the following to bolster your rant about this Myth. In this article, the author makes the statement:
“Lindows has a new agreement with AOL to run AOL software on the OS.”
This statement as far as I've been able to research in Michael's Minutes, was never uttered by Lindows and is thus a mistake of the author.
Now, what we can find in Michael's Minutes dated September 23rd, 2003, are these statements:
“Today, we announced AOL's Netscape software to be the default "Net suite" on LindowsOS 2.0. With the focus on ease-of-use and affordability, Netscape and LindowsOS combine to make for the ultimate "AOL Computer." “
“With over 35 million users, LindowsOS wanted to make sure AOL members felt right at home when choosing LindowsOS.”
“Until recently, AOL users were required to use the AOL client software to access their email and their buddy list - the life blood of their computing existence.”
The inclusion of Netscape 7.1 is what Michael touted as the AOL Computer. A statement which shows his understanding of the way in which many people view their computer and use it. A lot of AOL users see AOL AS THE INTERNET. They see the Internet as one of the main reasons to use their computer. Since the first Lindows computers were designed for people who would be doing word processing, email and using the Internet, you install AOL software to do those functions and hey, you've got yourself a nice little AOL computer. A marketing ploy, nothing else.
“We're proud to be working with the Netscape engineers to give AOL's customers a low -cost, easy-to-use but familiar experience with LindowsOS 2.0. “
This is most likely the statement from which the MSNBC reporter makes his false assessment that Lindows had an “agreement” to run AOL software. Which, may not be false at all. I'm not sure what type of “formal” agreement would be needed, if any, would be needed to bundle Netscape with an OS. The software license doesn't prohibit it as long as there isn't any reverse engineering or such, so I guess, in essence, that could be an agreement to use Netscape. However, while perhaps there was no FORMAL relationship with AOL, Lindows has contributed support to the Mozilla project, which of course, up until recently, had Netscape Engineers working on it. So, while perhaps misleading as to the full nature of the relationship between AOL and Lindows, not a fabrication as you would have it be.
Myth: The LindowsOS Tablet PC.
Since your research appears to be so extensive concerning LindowsOS and the tablet PC, I mean you found a whole two articles, which said it would be released in 2003, a statement that I have yet to find as being made by Lindows, I'm surprised you didn't find the following on OSNews:
What happened with your plans for a TabletPC? Last year we heard about the DocuNote and Lindows, but later DocuNote shipped with Windows.
Kevin Carmony: We are still working on this. The Linux drivers for using a stylus on these devices was all but non existent, so it has taken a long time to make progress here. We decided that until our tablet support could do everything MS Windows offered, we didn't want to release LindowsOS for these devices yet. Running LindowsOS on these machines isn't hard, but having it take advantage of all the pen features is a very big challenge. Our CTO uses a pen computer running LindowsOS, so I know we're getting close.”
There's your update, saying they are working on it and a reason as to why it hasn't shipped yet. Well, how about that.
Google is da bomb.
Myth: Lindows doesn't run as root by default.
Waahhh wahhh wahhh wahhh wahhh.
That's all I was going to say at first, but instead, here's an analogy.
OS = Dangerous Tool.
Root Password = Safety Mechanism.
User account = Keyed lock on Safety Mechanism.
Running as root is only dangerous if you don't know how to use your tool. If your scared someone else might have problems or might inadvertently access your tool, you add a safety mechanism. If they are smart enough to get around the safety mechanism, you add a padlock on top of it.
I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would keep the gun loaded, but keep the safety on and lock it in the closet. You on the other hand, would have us unload the gun, put the safety on, lock it in the closet and put the key in a lock box, under the top right had corner of the bed as it sits against the wall. That is your idea of security.
While in of itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it can, at times, degrade the usefulness of the tool to the point of hindering it's general use. If the tools is not something that you use very often and don't need easy access to in an emergency, then these are good security measures. However, when I am not running as root, I found my self inhibited from doing a lot of the things that I wish to do, somethings that I don't see a need to be able to run as root to do. The fact that “sudo” and it's ilk exist, mean to me that there are people who agree with me. In my case, I don't want to even have to run sudo. I am a lazy man, as such, I don't want to have to do anything extremely special to run a program. I want to click on it and have it run. As such, I take precautions in the things that I open. I check the effects of what they will do and I keep my important data secure through backup and by placing it outside the normal directories.
But that's me, my choice and that's the point. Lindows forces no one to do anything. Everything is an option. So the only choices that Lindows makes for you are those choices that would be hard for a non-linux guru to understand.
Besides all that, I see the root by default argument as bunk in the first place. Every Linux computer runs as root by default. It has to. How can you create anything if you are not running as root. The install is a program that is running as root or as system or as whatever the the devils playground you want to call it. The point is, at some point during a Linux installation, there is a choice, to setup a user account or to not setup a user account. When setting up a user account you are running as something other than user, something with elevated permissions, root, installation or system, that could allow something bad to be done to your machine. The fact that Lindows relegates this to after the first boot up, you call insecure. While I do agree that a root password should be required, not having a root password is only truly insecure if the computer is connected to a untrusted network, ie the Internet. Any other time, and even then, it's like the lock on your front door. You only use it if you don't completely trust the people around you.
I ask you a question concerning not running as root: why? Give me a good reason, on a computer with only one user, why that user should not run as root.
Myth: Lindows as secure as Debian.
You say:
“The above security issues are serious and leave LindowsOS systems open to security vulnerabilities.”
Your “above security issues” are Lindows running as root. Is that the only security that Linux has in it? That's it? That's all it takes to make an OS secure? Well the devils playground, lets tell Microsoft we solved all their security problems. Lets just make everyone using Windows run on a Guest account and Windows will be as secure as Linux. Yea man, you've solved the whole security problem. How's it feel? What are you going to do now?
How about LEAVING Disneyland, the fantasy land, and joining the rest of us in reality.
Myth: Lindows is the only choice for Desktop Linux (in the Netherlands in this example)
I wouldn't consider this a Myth as more a marketing ploy. Perhaps you don't know about marketing. Or the nature of press releases. I agree with you that the wording of the press release wasn't true, but I think it was more “dramatizing” than it was an attempt to actually deceive.
While it is not true that no one in the Netherlands would be unable to get a version of Linux designed for the desktop, if you read the ruling, you'd see that this would virtually be the case.
Consider that Linux, including desktop Linux and those versions put out by Lycoris, Debian, and Xandros, is mostly a hobbyist Operating System and that none of the providers listed above has a very small to none marketing budget.
Consider, Lindows has a much larger Marketing budget and is generating a name recognition that none of the other desktop Linux providers are.
Consider, according to the court documents in which the court stated it's opinion, that Microsoft has 95% of the desktop Operating System market.
Consider that most of the other major distributions which could provide the support for their OS that Lindows does are developed for the enterprise environment and not the desktop environment.
With these considerations in mind, this ruling would seem to lock out the one TRUE competitor to Windows from the Dutch market and make it virtually impossible for the average person to learn enough about Linux from a mainstream source and thus, as far as average joe consumer would be concerned, remove any choice in the operating system market.
That is my assessment of the situation in the Netherlands.
One truth: Lindows has a relationship with SCO.
Well, besides the obvious fact that Lindows had the agreement with SCO when SCO was Caldera, 2 years before any notion that SCO was going to try to take over the world through the courts, as per their own press release. This agreement does nothing more, now, than to shelter Lindows and it's users from any negative fall out towards Linux from the SCO case and provide whatever technology it is that Caldera gave to Lindows.
Just because Lindows has a hold over this jilted Linux lover that no one else does, doesn't make them the devil.
Just one more Myth.
Myth: Forrest Taylor writes the truth and knows what he is talking about.
I find it interesting that you have quietly asked the webmaster of this website to update some of your most obvious blunders in writing this article without any sort of apology or explanation.
8 times in your article you accuse Lindows of lies, blatant lies, and outright lies, yet you yourself can't keep from them. You think that Michael Robertson should be held responsible for his lies and I guess you are the one to do that when you can not even see past your own? Then you have the audacity to include the following in your copyright line:
“All of the preceeding comments are opinions of the writer, and as such are protected under laws regarding free speech, in Canada, the United States, Australia, internationally, and anywhere truth prevails.”
Tell us dear sir, what is truth? Is it based on facts, of which you presented none? Is it based on first hand knowledge or media conjecture? Is it knowledge that is up to date, or the last thing you remember hearing?
I don't think you know.
Myth busted and as you would say, “lie exposed.”
My opinion.
Sincerely,
Jonathon Lamon
This open letter is copyright 2004 by Jonathon Lamon under the Open Publication License.
Click here to read & post comments for this editorial
This is a Guest editorial, all views are property of Jonathon Lamon, and the content in this editorial is not necessarily the views or opinions of OSGUI.com
I recently read your review entitled “A Thoroughly Different Review of Lindows” and upon reading it, took exception with you lack of knowledge, integrity and obvious inability to use a search engine such as Google. In your article you take exception with Lindows, it's practices, and try to 'debunk' the Myths you believe that are bringing Lindows to the fore front of the desktop Linux market. My guess is that your intention is to get people to not use Lindows and move to some other Linux, which you may consider to be more 'pure' in it's Linux-ness. I'm not sure. I'm no mind reader, but based on articles, postings and ramblings of some of the half-crazed Linux zealots out there and the similarities between their babbling and yours, I hazard the above conjecture as an educated guess.I am a Lindows user. I like Lindows and I like the company. I may not always agree with them on everything, but I have an understanding of their intentions and the direction which they are trying to go and I applaud their efforts. They have provided me with a product and an enjoyment in using my computer that I have not felt since I logged onto my first BBS back in 1991. As such, in appreciation of the efforts of the Lindows team, I've decided to take a stab at a rebuttal within the limited time that I have.
So, below are your Myths, what I think of them and what I was able to bring together while writing this letter. This is my first such effort, so hopefully, I don't make too many errors.
Myth: Lindows claims to be a Windows Emulator.
First and foremost, they do not. They did, at a time, attempt to integrate wine into Lindows. After discovering how difficult that could actually be, they decided to stop. So what? Since then, they have made no claims that they are a Windows Emulator. And since Wine is not an emulator, Lindows, including Wine, would have never been an emulator. The Lindows web page which you linked to describes, accurately, that in order to run what Windows programs will work on Linux you need Wine, your big complaint seems to be that there is a Myth that it will run Windows programs. While this was one time a goal, goals tend to change. Just because you can not keep up, doesn't mean that Lindows is at fault, especially when they provide a concise, clear cut, explanation as to why your misconception is incorrect.
Myth: The first AOL Computer
You point to a "Microsoft" NBC article that states the following to bolster your rant about this Myth. In this article, the author makes the statement:
“Lindows has a new agreement with AOL to run AOL software on the OS.”
This statement as far as I've been able to research in Michael's Minutes, was never uttered by Lindows and is thus a mistake of the author.
Now, what we can find in Michael's Minutes dated September 23rd, 2003, are these statements:
“Today, we announced AOL's Netscape software to be the default "Net suite" on LindowsOS 2.0. With the focus on ease-of-use and affordability, Netscape and LindowsOS combine to make for the ultimate "AOL Computer." “
“With over 35 million users, LindowsOS wanted to make sure AOL members felt right at home when choosing LindowsOS.”
“Until recently, AOL users were required to use the AOL client software to access their email and their buddy list - the life blood of their computing existence.”
The inclusion of Netscape 7.1 is what Michael touted as the AOL Computer. A statement which shows his understanding of the way in which many people view their computer and use it. A lot of AOL users see AOL AS THE INTERNET. They see the Internet as one of the main reasons to use their computer. Since the first Lindows computers were designed for people who would be doing word processing, email and using the Internet, you install AOL software to do those functions and hey, you've got yourself a nice little AOL computer. A marketing ploy, nothing else.
“We're proud to be working with the Netscape engineers to give AOL's customers a low -cost, easy-to-use but familiar experience with LindowsOS 2.0. “
This is most likely the statement from which the MSNBC reporter makes his false assessment that Lindows had an “agreement” to run AOL software. Which, may not be false at all. I'm not sure what type of “formal” agreement would be needed, if any, would be needed to bundle Netscape with an OS. The software license doesn't prohibit it as long as there isn't any reverse engineering or such, so I guess, in essence, that could be an agreement to use Netscape. However, while perhaps there was no FORMAL relationship with AOL, Lindows has contributed support to the Mozilla project, which of course, up until recently, had Netscape Engineers working on it. So, while perhaps misleading as to the full nature of the relationship between AOL and Lindows, not a fabrication as you would have it be.
Myth: The LindowsOS Tablet PC.
Since your research appears to be so extensive concerning LindowsOS and the tablet PC, I mean you found a whole two articles, which said it would be released in 2003, a statement that I have yet to find as being made by Lindows, I'm surprised you didn't find the following on OSNews:
What happened with your plans for a TabletPC? Last year we heard about the DocuNote and Lindows, but later DocuNote shipped with Windows.
Kevin Carmony: We are still working on this. The Linux drivers for using a stylus on these devices was all but non existent, so it has taken a long time to make progress here. We decided that until our tablet support could do everything MS Windows offered, we didn't want to release LindowsOS for these devices yet. Running LindowsOS on these machines isn't hard, but having it take advantage of all the pen features is a very big challenge. Our CTO uses a pen computer running LindowsOS, so I know we're getting close.”
There's your update, saying they are working on it and a reason as to why it hasn't shipped yet. Well, how about that.
Google is da bomb.
Myth: Lindows doesn't run as root by default.
Waahhh wahhh wahhh wahhh wahhh.
That's all I was going to say at first, but instead, here's an analogy.
OS = Dangerous Tool.
Root Password = Safety Mechanism.
User account = Keyed lock on Safety Mechanism.
Running as root is only dangerous if you don't know how to use your tool. If your scared someone else might have problems or might inadvertently access your tool, you add a safety mechanism. If they are smart enough to get around the safety mechanism, you add a padlock on top of it.
I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would keep the gun loaded, but keep the safety on and lock it in the closet. You on the other hand, would have us unload the gun, put the safety on, lock it in the closet and put the key in a lock box, under the top right had corner of the bed as it sits against the wall. That is your idea of security.
While in of itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it can, at times, degrade the usefulness of the tool to the point of hindering it's general use. If the tools is not something that you use very often and don't need easy access to in an emergency, then these are good security measures. However, when I am not running as root, I found my self inhibited from doing a lot of the things that I wish to do, somethings that I don't see a need to be able to run as root to do. The fact that “sudo” and it's ilk exist, mean to me that there are people who agree with me. In my case, I don't want to even have to run sudo. I am a lazy man, as such, I don't want to have to do anything extremely special to run a program. I want to click on it and have it run. As such, I take precautions in the things that I open. I check the effects of what they will do and I keep my important data secure through backup and by placing it outside the normal directories.
But that's me, my choice and that's the point. Lindows forces no one to do anything. Everything is an option. So the only choices that Lindows makes for you are those choices that would be hard for a non-linux guru to understand.
Besides all that, I see the root by default argument as bunk in the first place. Every Linux computer runs as root by default. It has to. How can you create anything if you are not running as root. The install is a program that is running as root or as system or as whatever the the devils playground you want to call it. The point is, at some point during a Linux installation, there is a choice, to setup a user account or to not setup a user account. When setting up a user account you are running as something other than user, something with elevated permissions, root, installation or system, that could allow something bad to be done to your machine. The fact that Lindows relegates this to after the first boot up, you call insecure. While I do agree that a root password should be required, not having a root password is only truly insecure if the computer is connected to a untrusted network, ie the Internet. Any other time, and even then, it's like the lock on your front door. You only use it if you don't completely trust the people around you.
I ask you a question concerning not running as root: why? Give me a good reason, on a computer with only one user, why that user should not run as root.
Myth: Lindows as secure as Debian.
You say:
“The above security issues are serious and leave LindowsOS systems open to security vulnerabilities.”
Your “above security issues” are Lindows running as root. Is that the only security that Linux has in it? That's it? That's all it takes to make an OS secure? Well the devils playground, lets tell Microsoft we solved all their security problems. Lets just make everyone using Windows run on a Guest account and Windows will be as secure as Linux. Yea man, you've solved the whole security problem. How's it feel? What are you going to do now?
How about LEAVING Disneyland, the fantasy land, and joining the rest of us in reality.
Myth: Lindows is the only choice for Desktop Linux (in the Netherlands in this example)
I wouldn't consider this a Myth as more a marketing ploy. Perhaps you don't know about marketing. Or the nature of press releases. I agree with you that the wording of the press release wasn't true, but I think it was more “dramatizing” than it was an attempt to actually deceive.
While it is not true that no one in the Netherlands would be unable to get a version of Linux designed for the desktop, if you read the ruling, you'd see that this would virtually be the case.
Consider that Linux, including desktop Linux and those versions put out by Lycoris, Debian, and Xandros, is mostly a hobbyist Operating System and that none of the providers listed above has a very small to none marketing budget.
Consider, Lindows has a much larger Marketing budget and is generating a name recognition that none of the other desktop Linux providers are.
Consider, according to the court documents in which the court stated it's opinion, that Microsoft has 95% of the desktop Operating System market.
Consider that most of the other major distributions which could provide the support for their OS that Lindows does are developed for the enterprise environment and not the desktop environment.
With these considerations in mind, this ruling would seem to lock out the one TRUE competitor to Windows from the Dutch market and make it virtually impossible for the average person to learn enough about Linux from a mainstream source and thus, as far as average joe consumer would be concerned, remove any choice in the operating system market.
That is my assessment of the situation in the Netherlands.
One truth: Lindows has a relationship with SCO.
Well, besides the obvious fact that Lindows had the agreement with SCO when SCO was Caldera, 2 years before any notion that SCO was going to try to take over the world through the courts, as per their own press release. This agreement does nothing more, now, than to shelter Lindows and it's users from any negative fall out towards Linux from the SCO case and provide whatever technology it is that Caldera gave to Lindows.
Just because Lindows has a hold over this jilted Linux lover that no one else does, doesn't make them the devil.
Just one more Myth.
Myth: Forrest Taylor writes the truth and knows what he is talking about.
I find it interesting that you have quietly asked the webmaster of this website to update some of your most obvious blunders in writing this article without any sort of apology or explanation.
8 times in your article you accuse Lindows of lies, blatant lies, and outright lies, yet you yourself can't keep from them. You think that Michael Robertson should be held responsible for his lies and I guess you are the one to do that when you can not even see past your own? Then you have the audacity to include the following in your copyright line:
“All of the preceeding comments are opinions of the writer, and as such are protected under laws regarding free speech, in Canada, the United States, Australia, internationally, and anywhere truth prevails.”
Tell us dear sir, what is truth? Is it based on facts, of which you presented none? Is it based on first hand knowledge or media conjecture? Is it knowledge that is up to date, or the last thing you remember hearing?
I don't think you know.
Myth busted and as you would say, “lie exposed.”
My opinion.
Sincerely,
Jonathon Lamon
This open letter is copyright 2004 by Jonathon Lamon under the Open Publication License.
Click here to read & post comments for this editorial
This is a Guest editorial, all views are property of Jonathon Lamon, and the content in this editorial is not necessarily the views or opinions of OSGUI.com
| Comments |
|
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20
3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
