der.hans wrote:
| Am 14. Sep, 2003 schwätzte Rob Wultsch so:
|
| I don't mind a company standing behind a distribution and making money on
| it. Heck, I'm trying to get something like that here in the Valley :).
Neither do I. However, I do have a problem with a company using false
marketing schemes to try to trick people into beliving they are backed
by someone they are not. [1] I also, have serve problems with a company
using software built by the community and not playing by the rules. [2]
|>1. First it is debian underneath that many of use know and love.
|>2. Every review claims that it is easly to install.
|
| Irrelevant if it's coming pre-installed :). That they're getting companies
| to pre-install it is great.
The fact they are making inroads in this area is good. This is why we
should not be hostile towards them.
|>4. It is a suscription based service as much as it is an OS. So most of
|>the programs are availible for free (as in both), but does that mean
|>that they will apt-get nicely? If Lindows can keep installation easy and
|>bug free then is that not worth paying for?
|
|
| As long as they make security updates no-cost and easily installable I'm
| fine with them charging for upgrade of non-security updates. Same
thing goes
| for Red Hat, Mandrake, et al.
The way they are moving is to make Click N Run completely incompatiable
with apt-get (it already is as of 4.0). It probably will not be long
before they disable the ability to use apt-get as well. At which point
you have someone trying to lock you into their service (Being they are
the only click n run provider) This is not good.
- -Derek Neighbors
[1]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/30/1135213&mode=thread&tid=120
[2]
http://gnu-friends.org/story/2002/4/15/152033/483
(text/plain)