Xandros, Lindows, Debian, the future of distros

[mike808@users.sourceforge.net]

> ... CrossOver isn't perfect (which it isn't).  They got pretty embarassed 
> with their claims of Windows compatibility, ...

I can understand that. So why didn't Codeweavers take any of the heat?
Or Lindows offer to "incent" Codeweavers to meet their [Lindows'] claims 
(that apparently went beyond what Codeweavers delivers)? Any embarassment
was mostly of their own making and marketing, not Codeweavers'.

>> credit for putting "yet another pretty face" on the Debian install.
> 
> Well, so did we (Progeny).  Except that we didn't keep our pretty face
> to ourselves; we gave it back to Debian, just as we promised we'd do. 
> And you can use that pretty face to install real Debian today, without
> licensing fees, or EULAs, or any other behind-the-scenes shenanigans to
> distract you.

Hmmm. I might be heading to that URL soon to check it out.

> We've come a long way to help Debian forget Corel's behavior, I think.

And Corel is gone (from the Linux business). Why blame Xandros for picking
up the Open Source pieces and forging a new business out of it? Just
as what will likely happen with Mandrake. The company may die, but the
code doesn't. Unless you have some info that the core Xandros team is
mostly the former Corel Linux team, and has the same mentality.

> [click'n'run]
>
> That (the beta) was something they were grilled on pretty heavily when
> they met with a bunch of us.  My conclusion from that conversation was
> that Lindows was naive; they didn't understand the problems, and just
> did what companies normally do with betas.  They promised to do better,
> which they seem to have done up until recently.  Single stupid event, or
> the beginning of a trend?  Time will tell, I suppose.

But, from a single "stupid event" of Corel's lack of credit to Debian,
you're not willing to even consider that they were also, perhaps, naive.
You've concluded that Xandros must suffer from their Corel ancestry, and
are willing to entertain justifications and explanations from Lindows, 
but not from Xandros? At least you make clear your bias, for the reader
to take into account.

> As for Click-N-Run, who knows?  Maybe it'll work, maybe not.

Xandros is moving, I think to a similar model with their "Xandros Network".
And all of these are based on the "Red Hat Network" model of subscription
access to software update repositories. Also, the boys from Redmond are
also on this plan as well, they just don't call it a subscription (yet).

The value will come down to how well they will execute the "tweaks" required
to integrate package updates with their particular distribution. I think
a lot of energy is going into figuring out how to implement a "rolling 
release" type of distribution. The market pressures are moving there, and
we see this in the announcements of shorter release cycles. First annual,
and quickly moving to 6 months. A key problem is the broadband vs. CD
delivery mechanism.

> BTW, the price for the distro includes a year of Click-N-Run, so it's
> hard to fault them for shipping a stripped-down base if you can install
> add-ons for free.

Which totally sucks if you don't have broadband. It's hard to remember
the vast majority of folks that don't have it when you've gotten *very*
used to it. It's quite seductive.

> > Does anyone have first-hand experience with Lindows and care to comment?
> 
> I've seen it running and talked to their developers about it.  In
> particular, apt still works, so you don't have to use Click-N-Run if
> you're comfortable with apt.  It looks slick, and appears to be "user
> friendly" as far as that goes.

Sounds about the same as Xandros. You can also opt-out and add your own
apt repositories. The GUI tools to do this are nice, and easy to understand
for desktop users (i.e. no using 'vi' or 'emacs' to edit /etc/apt/ files).

As mentioned, the "Xandros Networks" service looks to be similar to 
Click'n'Run, but they haven't worked out the pricing model yet.

That said, since all of the distros have "online update" in some form
or another, and are increasingly looking to that as a revenue generator
(since bandwidth is cheaper and faster for just-in-time delivery of the
"inventory" (aka software) than CDs and physical media), especially for
its recurring nature, as well as not having to share costs with distributors.

So, is the future something like a floppy install and broadband required?
You *know* Micro$oft is drooling to get this, if they think they could get 
away with it. That's exactly what "product activation" is all about. However, 
they have a problem in that their proprietary licensing model has to manage 
who is allowed to have what. Yet another reason to love Open Source.

But, this is also a problem for the Open Source repository folks since they
are effectively competing on price for the service, since they can't 
charge for or restrict what you download from them. And since the commodity
in that model is the bandwidth, it's they who make the money, not the
repository managers. It's going to be tough convincing the public on the
value and relative merits (to your competition) of your "packaging" skills
if you're a distro.

We're seeing signs of this in the proliferation of "targeted" distros - 
Firewalls, Enterprise, RealTime, Embedded, Desktops, etc.. In that world,
Debian does, I think, have the right approach in focusing on the packaging.
Just as the BSD folks have also focused on that to some extent.

The commercial distros are just now focusing on what's in their distros, 
instead of the older model of include everything because more is better.
(i.e. SuSE).

Just my 10b cents.

Mike808/

---------------------------------------------
http://www.valuenet.net



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.