Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: sirjon on 21 December 2001, 21:00
-
Microsoft asked a court on Thursday to stop a Linux start-up from using a name the software giant contends infringes on the Windows trademark.
The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant filed a motion with the U.S. Court for the Western District of Washington against Lindows , which is developing a version of the Linux operating system that will run popular applications written for Microsoft's Windows OS.
Microsoft contends the company, which plans to formally release its product next year, purposely is trying to confuse Lindows with Windows. The suit asks the court to order the start-up to stop using the Lindows name and also seeks unspecified monetary damages.
"We're not asking the court to stop the company from making their products," said Microsoft spokesman Jon Murchinson. "What we're saying is they should not use a name that could confuse the public and infringe on our valuable trademark."
Lindows is based on the Wine project, an open-source effort to mimic the commands that Windows programs use. The San Diego-based Lindows company was launched earlier this year by Michael Robertson, former CEO of digital music site MP3.com.
Robertson characterized the move as another attempt by Microsoft to thwart a viable threat to its Windows empire.
"If they're alleging that people are going to be confusing Microsoft Corp. with Lindows.com, I think there's zero potential of that happening," he said. "If people are confused, just remember that we're not the convicted monopolist."
Murchinson said Microsoft considered legal action a last resort.
"Clearly we prefer to work with them to resolve this problem voluntarily. Their product name infringes on our trademark," Murchinson said. "We hope they will work with us to resolve this problem without the need for legal action."
Robertson said he had heard from nobody at Microsoft regarding the name dispute. "They just filed lawsuits," he said.
Microsoft has been involved in an increasingly fractious war of words with Linux supporters this year, with Microsoft executives castigating the open-source distribution model behind Linux as a sure road to commercial failure and on blight for software development.
Emmett Stanton, an attorney at Palo Alto, Calif.-based Fenwick & West, said Microsoft has not been overzealous in the past about protecting its trademark, allowing spoof sites and others to go unchallenged.
"They're not the type to sue at the drop of a hat," he said, concluding that there appears to be solid ground for the Lindows complaint. "Superficially, you would have to say there's some potential for confusion, and the defendant may be trying to trade on Microsoft's position in the marketplace."
Robertson said he hoped to have a preview version of Lindows ready for download by next week, with a full version ready early next year. He said the company is targeting small and medium-sized business that might be interested in switching to a less expensive operating system but have invested in Windows applications such as Office.
"We're trying to give consumers a choice, where there's really no choice today," he said.
(C)2001 ZDnet.com
[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: SirJon ]
[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: SirJon ]
-
Just goes to show what MS thinks of their users. It also shows how scared they are that some two bit OS built by hacks might pose a threat to "the Redmond Software Giant" (God I hat that phrase, makes me want to puke). MS the company are just a bunch of pussys who have lawyer thugs Lenny and Guito to push everyone around. Our company got a visit from Lenny and Guito and we ended up being a couple hundred thousand short on software licenses. You need a phreaking PHD to figure out their Licensing... And they wonder why I like Linux....
-
Its spelled Guido not guito. And if that was really his name, he would have come with a baseball bat instead of a lawyer.
-
quote:
Originally posted by SirJon:
[QB]Microsoft asked a court on Thursday to stop a Linux start-up from using a name the software giant contends infringes on the Windows trademark.
How sad that a big company like Microsoft has to pick on a smaller company like this because they call themselves Lindows.
I thought big companies like MS exuded confidence and pride. :D
How naive I was. This past week saw a company mightier than MS, Enron, collapse. (http://tongue.gif)
Could it be that MS stooping to such juvenile tactics is a symptom of something bad? :confused:
If I were MS I'd figure out a way out of the DOJ debacle that would ensure that I did not go bankrupt.
The REAL sin about being so big is that you lose control. That's more a Steve Ballmer mentality.
:D
-
What about all of the companies that sue MS for being a monopoly(more like a huge success)? Suing a company because it is more successful than yours is pretty low. You people are hypocrits, you think it is ok for the small guys to do something but it is bad when the big guy does the same thing back.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua:
What about all of the companies that sue MS for being a monopoly(more like a huge success)? Suing a company because it is more successful than yours is pretty low. You people are hypocrits, you think it is ok for the small guys to do something but it is bad when the big guy does the same thing back.
werd
-
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua:
What about all of the companies that sue MS for being a monopoly(more like a huge success)? Suing a company because it is more successful than yours is pretty low. You people are hypocrits, you think it is ok for the small guys to do something but it is bad when the big guy does the same thing back.
And you don't know how to spell hypocrite.
In any case, moron, you are missing the fucking point. Microsoft is a predatory monopoly, not some fucking benign or altruistic company like you apparently are stupid enough to believe. If the only reason to hate Microsoft is because they are successful, then why don't people hate Lego or Kleenex or any of the other wildly succesful companies out there, you god forsaken idiot?
-
These M$ asswipes sure don't lack for nerve. Have you noticed their recent obsession with all things "X" - Win XP, X-Box? All this *after* Apple introduced OS X. (They were either too dumb to know that that was a Roman numeral for "10", or they figured that the rest of us were too stupid to know that.) How about AMD's bringing out a processor called "XP"? Why no law suits there? Now they complain about "Lindows"? What is that: L + indows, or Lin + dows? Perhaps Linus ought to sue them as well for infringing on the name Linux? :D
___________________________________
Live Free or Die: UNIX
[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by jtpenrod:
These M$ asswipes sure don't lack for nerve. Have you noticed their recent obsession with all things "X" - Win XP, X-Box? All this *after* Apple introduced OS X. (They were either too dumb to know that that was a Roman numeral for "10", or they figured that the rest of us were too stupid to know that.) How about AMD's bringing out a processor called "XP"? Why no law suits there? Now they complain about "Lindows"? What is that: L + indows, or Lin + dows? Perhaps Linus ought to sue them as well for infringing on the name Linux? :D
wtf? you think everything that has an X in it is because of MacOS X??? uummm ok
and so what if heaps of pc things use X. EVERYTHING on a mac has an i.
and about the athlon XP. they had a deal with microsoft. They did it together.
Microsoft also hasnt trademarked the letters XP. they have trade marked "windows XP" but no XP so they dont have grounds to sue even if they wanted to
-
I wanted to say merry chirstmas to all. Fuck microsoft and the stupid shit they do. Yes, they are a huge success. Yes, that is one of the rewards of capitalism. And I don't think all monopolies should be broken up. The Sherman anti-trust act is really a poor piece of legislation. When Standard Oil was broken up, oil prices actually rose and the consumer was hurt. The difference here is that if microsoft was standard oil, every car would be running on gasoline that prevented the doors from being locked and seatbelts would be disabled by default. Rockefeller built that company because he believed he was using the most efficient means necessary to produce the cheapest product. (oddly enough, part of the reason that Standard was broken up was because they were "using the most efficent means to produce oil" That was one actual charge against the company) Of course they weren't the nicest oil company in history, but business is, and should be cut throat. And in the end thats how we as consumers benefit. No one, not even microsoft believes that they are producing the best and cheapest products. They are producing the only product. Its bad business for them to worry about fixing countless securtity holes, the don't need to. Lets not forget we created this company. The purpose of this site now seems to be to correct the mass stupidity that caused microsoft to be so successful.
-
quote:
Fuck You Too
--Akronan :D
Here is another example of the intellectual astuteness I've come to know and expect from Microsofties everywhere. LOL
_____________________________________________
Live Free or Die: UNIX
[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
-
Hi Meathead,
I agree, the public at large has built M$ with its support. Even after the numerous security problems, stolen personal identities, millions of accumulated hours of lost productivity - the lemmings run like mad for each new thing M$ comes up with. Hopefully, real-market alternatives, supported by word-of-mouth (and electrons), will eventually help.
The Standard Oil breakup indeed was not well thought out, but in those days, neither was the future impact of anything Standard Oil was doing to its workers, nor the environment it operated in. The longer term impact of Sherman Anti-trust is evident if you ever travel to an oil producing third world country, and see how these same companies operate elsewhere. The USA isn't pristine, nor perfect, but at least here, we generally can drink decent water, breath ok air, let our kids play in the dirt.
I don't buy capitalistic free-for-all, as a justification for anything, because in reality, what we have is a mixed economy. We have it all, in some kind of balance, and though constantly shifting and evolving, it works well. I agree, the job of business is to do business well, but cutthroat is short-term strategy.
If you want to see what I mean, look at Canter-Fitzgerald. That was one aggressive company, still is. It got that way via tough-nosed business decisions, but the leader has heart. After they lost most of the people in the WTC attack, the regrouped, and rather than back away, and enjoy a continued obscene level of profit, is paying MILLIONS of dollars out to families of lost workers, for years to come.
That, my friend, is not cutthroat. But, the CEO, in fact is one of the most aggressive, hard-nosed businessmen on the planet. The guy has incredible balls, but apparently, has long term vision and true courage, as well. He's taking care of the people who helped him build his company in the first place.
It takes balls to do the right thing. It takes balls to be interested in knowing the right thing, too.
Taking care of people is the right thing. Microsoft isn't taking care of this country, nor this world, by abusing the position we've all contributed to. Microsoft is cutthroat - BUT HAS NO BALLS.
-
"If they're alleging that people are going to be confusing Microsoft Corp. with Lindows.com, I think there's zero potential of that happening," he said. "If people are confused, just remember that we're not the convicted monopolist."
I'm still laughing :D
Microsoft will be worried about Lindows. Companies being able to run windows apps without an MS OS underneath must be giving Bill nightmares.
If Microsoft were smart, they would not have given Lindows the free publicity.
-
As much as I hate M$ I think they have a valid point here. since Lindows is geared towards windows users.
-
What Lindows would be great for, is smoothing the migration from windows to Linux or Unix, not just for users but especially for companies who have paid a fortune for applications and training and don't want to switch to something else (yet) but do want to stop paying the outrageous OS license/upgrade fees to MS.
This will give companies who want to, time to migrate without losing functionality. A brilliant idea.
-
M$ has chosen Linux has their new enemy, after realizing that Apple was unbeatable in matters that count, i.e. OS performance, stability and easiness to use. While it is true that Windows XP is fairly better than 2000 Pro and a huge leap from the disgusting WinME, M$'s attempts to force the consumer to buy upgrades, patches and subscribe to MSN's internet services are absolutely unacceptable. I have been in this forum before defending XP; I maintain most of my argumentation, but have to add that XP's biggest problem is M$'s aggressive-offensive marketing. Windows Media Player simply sucks, that MP3 ripping restrictions are an offense to the costumer. The "Shop For Music Online" item in Explorer is also pukable. The index.dat and ntuser.dat files, which keep track of EVERY website and folder we open, delete or copy, are outrageous.
No wonder people are starting to turn to alternatives that are not intrusive or abusive.
Linux is a very good alternative, and should pose a serious threat to Windows in the next couple of years. That's why they are so afraid of it. While I still think Windows beats Linux in many issues, it's pleasing to see that Tux's house is evolving at lightspeed. Macs are already far superior to M$, so hopefully they will lose significant market share in the next couple of years - who knows, they might start doing some good OSs!
-
Bubbleass, is that really you? Or is someone impersonating you like they did me? It almost sounds like you're starting to emerge from the dark side. (http://smile.gif)
-
It IS me, all right - I was never on the dark side, I was perfectly aware of such issues, I just didn't realize how deep they were.
-
The funny thing is, Microsoft does not own the trademark "Windows". They only own the trademark "Microsoft Windows". Are they trying to say that people could confuse the term "Lindows" or "Lindows.com" with "Microsoft Windows"?
And what is Microsoft trying to say by this? Are they saying that Lindows needs to change their name because it may help provide a small amount of competition for the software giant monopoly? Isn't that exactly the courts' objective (at least on the surface, even if they really don't give a shit because they have much stock in MS)?
If MS is successful in beating "Lindows" and "Lindows.com" then MIT should sue MS for infringing on "XWindows" which was out *long* before "Microsoft Windows". I don't see how Microsoft could have a case here. They *only* want to stomp Linux in any way they can. Just like in the old story, "David" will win in the end (referring to Linux as David, not Lindows, the founder of Lindows is "no" David, but he should win this suit).
[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
connetix virtual pc(not sure how to spell it off hand)
allows me to run all the pc apps i want on my Mac and you don't see M$ suing them for it?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ben:
connetix virtual pc(not sure how to spell it off hand) allows me to run all the pc apps i want on my Mac and you don't see M$ suing them for it?
Well, the lawsuit with "Lindows" is because of the name sounding too much like "Microsoft Windows" (apparently they believe potential MS users are brainless, which is true I guess), not because of the apps it runs. If you believe that I have some swamp land. Now that doesn't mean Microsoft wont sue them for some other reason in the future depending on which way the wind is blowing. They have to keep those lawyers busy, they're paying them well.
[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
Oh shit, I just realized that "Bimbos" kinda sounds like Windows. Maybe all the blonde bimbos out there should be sued too! We will have to come up with a different name for the bimbos...perhaps...well we must be Politically correct here...hmmm...women.
-
Something that bothers me about this whole thing... M$ is coming out with a new box that plays xbox games and does a whole bunch of other net related stuff. Last time I checked it was the HomeStation or something like that. If that's what it is, couldn't sony sue for confusion between names if we play by M$'s rules?
-
If you haven't noticed, with MS it's "Do as I say, not as I do". They do one thing, then sue someone else for doing the exact same thing. I can't believe people still use their shit.
-
All the gringos in the world better watch out too!
This was bound to happen sooner or later though, M$ has been trying for years to get a solid grip on something to do with Linux, but being so ethereal and nonentitic as Linux is, it has been hard for them. (how can you sue a company that doesn't actually exist?)
So you can imagine the day when some press monitor guy leapt up from his chair, knocking his tray of sedatives to the floor and ambled along the corridor wiping the drool from his mouth. "Lord Gates!, Lord Gates!" i can almost hear him cry, "At last, Master, we can sue those dastardly Linux mongrels!" As he stood there, panting with excitement, i can imagine Gates slowly, but slowly, swivelling in his padded armchair with that evil/dopey grin on his face "Excellent." he would have said, "Release the hounds!"
BTW, wasn't XWindows actually called "X" and NOT "XWindows"? I thought it was called X because it was an upgrade from its parent program which was called "W". The name "XWindows" was attributed to it later as, sadly, people thought of windows whenever they saw any GUI.
-
And something else too! i'm sure there are many programs out there which emulate windows in a Linux environment and M$ has never kicked up a stink till now. Maybe they think there aren't enough people using linux to worry about it... ;)
-
Nope, it's been XWindows as long as I can remember, which is longer than there has been a Microsoft Windows. And sure, Wine, Win4Lin, etc have been around for a while but they have no case for that, which is why they are quibling on the Lindows name and not what it does (even though we know the *real* reason is because of what it does).
[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
My source re: X not XWindows is the book 'Rebel Code' by Glyn Moody
reviews can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738203335/102-6975599-1390561 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738203335/102-6975599-1390561)
and here:
http://www.scs.leeds.ac.uk/wylug/reviews/rebel_code.html (http://www.scs.leeds.ac.uk/wylug/reviews/rebel_code.html)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
My source re: X not XWindows is the book 'Rebel Code' by Glyn Moody
reviews can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738203335/102-6975599-1390561 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738203335/102-6975599-1390561)
and here:
http://www.scs.leeds.ac.uk/wylug/reviews/rebel_code.html (http://www.scs.leeds.ac.uk/wylug/reviews/rebel_code.html)
I don't have that book, which looks like a book for Linux and there is nothing I could find in the links you mention that back up what you say. I used to have the full set of O'Reilly books on Xwindows programming (took up an entire shelf). Remember Xwindows was around long before Linux came on the scene. As long as I can remember it was commonly referred to "Xwindows", but "X" or "X11" for short, but I don't claim to have the best memory. The first document I found on a quick search on Xwindows history is:
http://campus.champlain.edu/faculty/rogate/cis233f/Unix-Lec3.htm (http://campus.champlain.edu/faculty/rogate/cis233f/Unix-Lec3.htm)
states:
quote:
Xwindows History
Xwindows standard was developed at MIT in early 1980s
It spread similar to UNIX. It was implemented by different companies and individuals using different computers and having different needs.
New releases overseen by a consortium of companies (IBM, DEC, MIT)
Standard left out rules for user interface
Fosters interoperability between different types of computers (different models of mainframes, minicomputers, PCs).
Standard is maintained today by the Xconsoritium (a group of manufacturers)
Current version: X11 Release 6
However, looking over the legal page on www.xfree.org, (http://www.xfree.org,) specifically: http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE2.html#3 (http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE2.html#3)
states that "X Window System" is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc which took over the Xwindows project from MIT. I didn't do a trademark search to see the date that was registered but that could easily be done. I clearly remember everyone referring to it as "Xwindows" before MS Windows came out, and almost every official document I see the word "Xwindows" used in has a "TM" next to that name referring to MIT.
How can we get a difinitive answer on this? Anyone know anyone who worked on the project at MIT?
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
After a little more research I am leaning toward thinking that the "official" trademark is "X Window System". Now I have a problem even with that. I have searched and searched tess on http://www.uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov) and I can't find any trace of any of it. Lot's of "Windows XP", "Microsoft Windows", "Microsoft <insert any common word here>", but nothing to do with "Xwindows", "X Window System", "X11", etc. Just where the hell did they register their trademark?? I'm a novice in this area if you can't tell.
-
Wow! you sure do yr research! that's all news to me...
That book tracks the history of Linux, starting with a history of UNIX, and i got it in Australia, so i'm not sure if it's available elsewhere... It's a very good book though and well recommended, but i'm sure you can imagine the writer is not totally objective, so i don't stand by the remarks regarding XWindows. I can't even remember what section of the book it's in, you would have to go looking up MIT and XWindows in the index et c...
-
Thanks, but I still have mixed emotions regarding Lindows. I go to their web site and it's not hard to get the impression that "Michael" has a very large ego (the picture of him on the front page gives that away). I get the feeling he is a "Bill Gates wannabe" and doesn't have a GNU/FSF motivation. It appears to be all about money if you ask me. It will be interesting to see if you will be able to download a non-crippled copy of his OS for free and with no strings attached when it is released.
Having said that, it still might be a good thing for the anti-MS types as it could be the stepping stone out of the MS trap that is necessary to get Linux on more desktops and to make app developers understand that it will be gaining ground, causing the app vendors to port their software to Linux, then the flood gates would open (the dam would break, etc).
Of course on the other hand, developers might have less incentive to port to Linux since Lindows would theoretically already be able to run the apps as Windows programs.
And for those that are stuck on Windows because of MS Office, even though Lindows can run MS Office, why pay $99 for Lindows when the MS OS sells for not much more in relation to the cost of MS Office itself when Windows will likely be able to run MS Office better than Lindows can because it is running it natively? I think it is key that OpenOffice or KOffice etc become mature enough to be a viable option (I think major strides are being made and they are getting close).
Once all the app vendors have a Linux port and there is an equal or better Office product, MS (and Lindows) become extinct. That will be a truly banner day!
-
You are right, the thing about whether or not we'll get a free download is the decider. Of course, the words, gate, horse and bolt spring to mind, since in the Linux world it seems that if somebody does something, and somebody else doesn't like the way they did it, somebody else gets right on down making a better/free/whatever needs to be changed version and everybody benifits! There's no way to be a Bill Gates in the Linux arena, i sincerely hope not anyway!
If they release their stuff under the open source GPL thing, then it makes no difference whether Lindows are any use. If they are, great! If not, well, wait a year and somebody will have come out with a much better version, maybe even them themselves.
The main thing about this is, i reckon many linux distributions will get their heads out of their bums and start including a bunch of serious Win to Lin migration tools. Tools which will enable you to keep ALL the proprietary M$ formats (.xls, .doc, .avi, .wma et c) and still read and edit them flawlessly within Linux. It can certainly be done i'm sure, but i think that will be the next push for making Linux acceptable to the mass consumer.
It's not about an idiot proof GUI, it's about whether you can do your word processing or spreadsheet, and then email the results to someone on a Windows system, or a Mac.
When full integration is complete, M$ will be truly out the window. Not before.
-
HEY PEOPLE...NO FEAR...FUCK MICROSOFT IS HERE!!! I'm from the MSN CORP...and they sURE Suck!!!
i havent got a promotion in 2yrs...i dunno why!!! i waz that ass who developed the WINDOWS MESSENGER!!! I CURSE MYSELF!!! I SWEAR SOMEDAY BILL GATES WILL REALISE AND SHUT DOWN THAT DAMN COMPANY!!! :mad:
-
(My first post here)
This Lindows vs Windows story sounds like the one where a swedish company registered the name Excel in 1982. A few years later M
-
quote:
"We're not asking the court to stop the company from making their products," said Microsoft spokesman Jon Murchinson. "What we're saying is they should not use a name that could confuse the public and infringe on our valuable trademark."
valuable?!?!? well, i guess if spending $500 to write an operating system, then get paid 230$ per unit.... you'll get money, and i guess it will be valuable
-
With regard to the 'confusion' issue:
quote:
By Ian Fried, News.com
In the latest court papers, which were made public Thursday, Lindows said it conducted a survey of 750 of its registered users and found that not one confused Microsoft with the start-up.
"Not a single respondent believed that Microsoft 'makes, sponsors or licenses Lindows OS' or 'owns or operates Lindows.com,'" the company said in the filing.
Further, Lindows argues that Windows is itself a generic term for a feature of an operating system, bolstering its case by drawing on Microsoft's own testimony when the software giant defended itself against Apple Computer in a 1988 suit.
well, the full article can be found here, such as it is. Seems M$ are fighting a losing battle, the only way for them to win now is to throw money at the problem in my opinion... (http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,5103385,00.html)
-
It'll be a disgrace if MS actually wins. Windows, lindows. Oh yeah people will soooo get confused :rolleyes: I seriously think a retard couldn't even get confused.
-
What Microsoft is trying to do with this lawsuit is to make Lindows spend so much money on the lawsuit that they will be unable to put out their new OS to compete with Windows.
If Lindows goes to put out their product while this lawsuit is going on, Microsoft will try to get a injunction to stop it so the company cannot sell the software until the lawsuit is over with.
Microsoft is hoping that they can get Lindows to run out of money so they will go out of buisness in which case I'm sure Microsoft will be willing to buy their failed company so they can make this OS disappear or they will put it out under their own name to compete more with the Linux/Unix market.
GW
-
Why can M$ sue Lindows when it's advertising its new Shitbox (sorry, Ex-Bo(llo)x) with the address www.Playmore.com? (http://www.Playmore.com?) Surely this might be confused with Playstation?
And I'm fitting new double-glazed viewing apertures to my house. I'd call them by their real name, but BillyG might not like that.
And is XWindows a real name/OS? If so, has anyone sued them lately? Answers on the back of 4000 pages of legal argument.....
-
btw, while i posted about the XWindows thing here before, and people said, yes, XWindows was a real name, i am reliably informed that the program was actually called just 'X' briefly before that. and 'W' before that, although it has been called XWindows for rather a long time (a longer time than M$ have had a monopoly, i'll wager).
Also, this Lindows thing is bullshit, but like somebody once said (i forget who),
"A jury is 12 people gathered together to decide who has the best lawyer."
Too true. :(
-
Budda bing, budda boom, budda Microsoft LOST! I can't believe we missed this. Why was it so quiet?
http://www.net2.com/lindows/ (http://www.net2.com/lindows/)
-
Hey,
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
Budda bing, budda boom, budda Microsoft LOST! I can't believe we missed this. Why was it so quiet?
http://www.net2.com/lindows/ (http://www.net2.com/lindows/)
WOOOHOOO PARTY TIME!!!!!!!!
-
so, does anyone know when lindows is due to come out? At lindows.com they just say "within the first few months of 2002"
YAY MS lost!!!!
-
Well, I fully expect Lindows to be a load of garbage and I really don't have any interest in the product. But I was certainly pulling for them in this law suit. I personally think Lindows is bad for Linux, but it's really hard to tell without the product. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
-
Hey,
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
Well, I fully expect Lindows to be a load of garbage and I really don't have any interest in the product. But I was certainly pulling for them in this law suit. I personally think Lindows is bad for Linux, but it's really hard to tell without the product. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
Im not particularly impressed with what I have seen at their website either. I am just happy to hear that someone beat MS. (http://smile.gif)
-
I have never used Lindows but anythime a huge company looses a baseless court action and the consumer maintains their choice it's a good thing. :D
-
yup, that's one good knock in the head right enough!
Re: Lindows, no it looks like something linux isn't.
How can they charge for it? doesn't the licence of linux require it to be free? or have they written a totally new OS that runs linux programs?
i'm confused :confused: .
-
The stupidest thing about this, that I find:
Microsoft say Lindows may be confused with Windows.
Thats only a difference of 1 letter, right? Replacing the W with L.
But the last of the Windows 9x range, was Me.
Now, thats only one letter different to a (much better) OS called Be.
And they never thought that would get confused, did they??
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
yup, that's one good knock in the head right enough!
Re: Lindows, no it looks like something linux isn't.
How can they charge for it? doesn't the licence of linux require it to be free? or have they written a totally new OS that runs linux programs?
i'm confused :confused: .
It's free software as in free speech, not free beer (http://smile.gif)
So it doesn't have to be free, however the source of all GPL programs must be accesible to the user (wether he payed for the program or downloaded it for free)
Some parts of the Lindows OS are however not licensed under the GPL, but under a different (propriety) license
-
i heard something about a new anti-trust lawsuit against winblows...
does anyone know if this is true?
-
Looks to me like M$ is just using the bullshit name likeness as a legally acceptable reason to attack lindows. The real threat of this company is in their whole approach and intention: giving people and businesses the chance to use M$ apps without the generally, though not always, compulsory crappy OS. This tells me that M$ is well aware that their OS's are bad. Regardless of how despicable their practices are otherwise, it speaks very badly of a company when it's obvious that they know one of their product lines is crap. Thinking about it in that way, this suit of lindows is really just another great big bitch slap to collective face of the american consumer. Not only that but you would think they'd have the sense not to press such a transparent suit when they're already in world of trouble because of the whole, uh, what's it called, monopoly thing. Last time I checked that was illegal. Anyways, if you see what's really behind the suit, it's almost makes you kind of feel bad for M$. You know, the way you feel bad for a known crack dealer who calls the cops because his neighbor's kid hit a baseball through the window.
-
Ever heard about WinLinux 2000??!! Well, I have. I even have it, and I used it a lot befor I got SuSe Linux. Since M$ sued Lindows, why didn't they sue WinLinux (unless they already have done it)? Someone has to teach M$ a lesson. The truth is that Bill Gates has somthing scary going on. And that is no joke (ever heard him talking about his visions for the future on the television?). 1) The truth is that he wants a total monpol on operative systems and software. 2) He also wants a pice of the computer game market. 3) Bill Gates has become a power-seeking-destructive-greedy-psycho. 4) M$ eradicates everybody who could oppose as a treath or as a comptetior.5)Why not call a terrorist and ask him to destroy Microsoft. Hahahahahaha.
Hmmmmmmmm.........
What about creatin a new Linx os? And call it WinLinux XP? :D :D And create it so it would be compatible with all windows games and software?? If someone can do that, I would be delighted!!
:D
-
i still reckon windows should be rewritten and released as a UNIX OS. then you could customise it by leaving out the bits you don't like and keeping the bits you did.
It could be called "WinSux".
Of course, if i got winsux there wouldn't be any point since i would probably take it ALL out and replace it all with linux ;)
that's a lie actually since i haven't got linux to do all the things i want it to, i'll be keeping my windows for a while. STILL, if winsux did get released as a UNIX OS, it would probably be all to fuck anyway (due to the sloppy codespersonship i suspect goes on behind M$' closed doors), so it would be better me just keeping my old 9x versions anyway.
WinSux, who would you like to rip off today?
-
Well! It's out of the frying pan and into... another frying pan for Lindows(TM), as they try and sleaze into AOL's good books. Click this link for the lowdown (http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1104-960792.html)
quote:
partial excerpt:
Lindows suggested the term "AOL computer" for such PCs. The company is promoting the AOL functionality as a major selling point for $200 (about
-
Hmm, I seem to remember people predicting statements like these;
(from above linked article)
quote:
The setup instructions are woefully inadequate, consisting of a diagram of where to stick each plug. My system included a glossy book on the computer's motherboard but no instructions for the operating system.
quote:
Lindows does make progress in one of Linux's most frustrating aspects. It built a mechanism for finding, installing and running software.
quote:
It worked most of the time.
and finally
quote:
Ultimately, Lindows is indeed about choice -- one that doesn't cost a lot of money but may end up costing considerable frustration and disappointment.
and all of this will end in nubies saying exactly those predicted things!
"linux is shit I'm going back to Winders"
-
quote:
Originally posted by Snoozer:
As much as I hate M$ I think they have a valid point here. since Lindows is geared towards windows users.
wasnt windows 3.1 geared towards mac users?