| More resources from ZDNet: | ||
| • | Editor's Top 5 Products | |
| • | ZDNet Tech Update | |
| • | Find a new tech career | |
| • | Special FREE Software | |
| • | Download MP3 music | |
| • | Hardware Quick Start Guides for Beginners | |
| Sign up for the free ZDNet News Dispatch: |
||
|
||
Posted on 10/29/2001 8:49:46 AM PST by Dominic Harr
Monday October 29 08:13 AM EST The "Lindows" conundrum
Why isn't anyone taking Lindows--a cheap OS that runs both Linux (news - web sites) and Windows code but looks like Windows--seriously? John Dvorak says because it could beget the massive transition that Microsoft perpetually fears.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Lindows, (www.lindows.com) has a name that in itself is genius. It's software that combines Linux and Windows without violating any trademark or copyright--although I bet Microsoft will sue at some point. The concept is to make a cheap OS that runs both Linux and Windows code, but that looks and runs like Windows. The Lindows concept was dreamed up by MP3.com entrepreneur Michael Robertson, and is encountering skepticism. Nobody is taking it too seriously except me. I think Lindows might fly if it can conquer one simple roadblock, and that's running Microsoft Office 97, 2000, and XP. If Lindows can run these versions of Office, then look out below. Bombs away.
One reason I have high hopes for the Lindows OS is that there is a 20-person team working on it, not a 20,000-person team. Starting with the base Linux OS gave the Lindows team a nice head start, after which all the team had to do was translate Windows app-to-OS hooks. The open-source WINE project helped out there. But the Lindows team still must make its OS run the key versions of Microsoft Office. Once the Lindows team starts talking about running StarOffice applications, then you'll know the developers have failed.
Now, assuming that the team gets Lindows to work, Michael Robertson is a proven CEO who can promote it. This will be needed, since the industry as a whole will not want to see such a product succeed in the short run. The industry is currently geared up for continued growth through never-ending hardware performance increases. Nobody wants to see a compatible OS appear on the scene that would make a 90-Mhz Pentium run rings around a gigahertz machine, which is a distinct possibility. This development would do nothing positive for computer sales or the industry. On the other hand, it could allow a new category of computer to appear: the $299 el cheapo machine. I have no difficulty imagining such a machine powered by a cheap, low-end Duron with 64 to 128 megs of memory and a 10-Gig hard disk. This would reinvigorate computing, since it would change all the cost-of-ownership numbers radically.
Microsoft will publicly laugh off this attempt to encroach on its business, but you can be certain the company is going to keep an eye on the Lindows folks. Microsoft's risky strategy concerning pricing of Windows XP, and its onerous antitheft policing mechanisms, may become problems. Those problems could be the opening Lindows needs to make inroads into the significant and influential home computing market. The new Microsoft policies are aimed at the families in America and elsewhere who have multiple machines and routinely upgrade one of them, then steal upgrades for the rest of the family. This can no longer be done. A family of four today often has four machines, or maybe five if you include the laptops. On the Lindows Web site, the company is making a point of telling people that it will not implement the Microsoft policy regarding universal home upgrades.
The irony of the new Microsoft policies is that they will probably not affect or improve sales one iota. In many environments, people have given up on the universal home upgrade, and they leave the various OSs in place. I, for example, have various machines in my house running many different operating systems. If a machine craps out, I would like to get an OS installed on it immediately. So, like everyone else in the world, I would like to just grab whatever OS disk I can find and get the machine back up and running. With XP that may be impossible, so Microsoft's policy is an annoyance. This is the kind of annoyance that Lindows can exploit. With all the complaining that people do about Microsoft, the company's new policies are not wise.
Thinking about the competitive costs of operating systems is interesting. I've been fascinated by the Palm OS versus Pocket PC OS battle, which resembles in every way the battle between Apple and Microsoft over the years. Since the invention of the Mac, Apple has had the easy-to-use computer and interface, but has suffered market share loss to Windows. The parallels between this battle and the Palm/Pocket PC battle are obvious with one exception: market share. The Palm OS has commanding market share. People like to attribute this to the fact that the Palm was out first, and had a head start. But as far as today's computers are concerned, the Macintosh had a head start too. The real key to understanding market dominance boils down to price and performance, period. If today's Mac were seriously cheaper than a PC in every way, Apple would dominate the way Palm does. Palm devices are just dirt cheap compared to Pocket PC devices.
I sense that Microsoft has lost sight of the simple fact that price/performance is everything, and prefers to believe its own publicity about innovation. I don't even need to go into the mess it's creating with all these nickel-and-dime schemes involving Passport, and the sneaky advertising Microsoft intends to implement with XP. That's all beside the point.
Lindows may not succeed, but it's at least possible. Even if Lindows comes close to success, the product could beget the massive transition that Microsoft perpetually fears.
The fonts are a little wierd, but other than that I think it's great.
Why would someone want Linux apps to crash constantly?
So does IE. Microsoft just gets the money from you in other ways, off of other products.
There's no such thing as a 'free' lunch.
No...the way to go is to migrate to StarOffice on Linux, lock, stock and barrel. Yes, it will cause some distress to some people, but in the long run, businesses will save so much money and hassle, it would well be worth it. It might not be practical to do yet. Still looking at another year or two, I'd guess. Until then, businesses should stick with Windows 2000.
Hehehe.
Good point!
Yeah, but IE crashes my machine on so many websites that I like (like nascar.com) that I won't mind paying for it, that is once I have tried it out enough. (You can download it without paying, but there is a pretty big adverstisement that is annoying).
Let's say your are me: You are competant with computer software, and competent enough with hardware that you can attach it, and add RAM or a hard drive etc. You are weak on networking, and resolving system conflicts, messing around with the registry, etc.
Realistically, could I switch to Linux and Staroffice without a major headache? In addition, is there any way I play software i.e. games that are written for windows? What about email and my cable modem?
I will probably get a new computer in a few months, and would rather not pay for Office 2000. I could borrow it from someone, but I would rather not do that for moral reasons. Any thoughts?
I agree, if a business owner was stern enough about it, and he could manage to hang on to his clerical staff after he informed 'em that they should "like it or lump it," the cost savings potential is huge. But that's a lot of ifs, in my estimation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.