The "Lindows" conundrum (New Linux *and* Windows compatible OS?)

ZDNet via Yahoo ^ | Monday October 29 08:13 AM EST | John C. Dvorak

[Dominic Harr]

Monday October 29 08:13 AM EST The "Lindows" conundrum

The "Lindows" conundrum

By John C. Dvorak, PC Magazine

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.

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:
(CNet/ZDNet Privacy Policy)

COMMENTARY-- Look at the recent release of Mac OS X (news - web sites) 10.1, at last week's Windows XP (news - web sites) extravaganza, at the recent upgrade for the Pocket PC OS, and at the out-of-the-blue announcement of the vaporware called Lindows, and you'd begin to think things are getting pretty exciting in the computing business. At least that's what you'd think if you were an anthropologist from Mars. Things are heating up more out of desperation than anything else. But there is hope for at least some excitement, thanks to Lindows.

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.

Email this story - View most popular  |  Printer-friendly format

[SC DOC]

But that name, "Lindows," is about as lame as they could have come up with.

Could have been Windux.

[ArrogantBustard]

I might have failed to figure out the bells and whistles,

I think that's what happened. What capability are you looking for, that is absent from SO 5.2? I've been using it on Windows 98SE for almost 2 years. I've found that some things are in a different place from their equivalent in Office 97, but they are still there.

AB

[egarvue]

I'm not sure about privacy, I feel that I can manage the cookies better. Also, not being made by Microsoft is an automatic security boost (ok, that's being faceitious, but may be not far from the truth). It tries to adhere to the international web standards as much as possible. Is it more secure? Probably, because not that many viruses are targetted at it.

[Rodney King]

Do you use the opera email program?

[ken5050]

MSFT lost its mind when it paid Madonna $15 million to use her song in the XP promotion......there must be something in the air in Redmond....

[DouglasKC]

Very interesting. But Linux-Mandrake, which comes complete with KDE and a few other GUI's is a legitimate contender with Windows. True it doesn't run Windows apps directly, but Star Office has all of the features that any but the most hardcore office users will want or need. The install for the newest versions are easy enough for a non-techie to do.

[billybudd]

I'm skeptical. Even if they do get some Windows apps running, they most likely won't get most of the important ones. Why would you want an OS that only does half of what you need to do? I can't see how it would be faster than Windows, since it would not be running native code. Whatever, though, they should give it a shot.

[seabass1]

there must be something in the air in Redmond

Hey step off our air!!!

other subject.. Like many other people I use both linux and Windows. For anybody thinking of changing over to linux I suggest they do it on an extra box. If you try changing your only box over to linux you might get quite upset if you run into a few unexpected problems. I like linux a lot but many programs that I use I need windows. Also I have enough problems trying to help my family with problems they have in windows I would never want to have to be Tech support for family members running linux. (I still love you Mom)

[Mr_Magoo]

:-)

[Billthedrill]

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.

We're looking at precisely that at my company, and have discovered one of the downsides to the Linux apps world is an established training base. Most of the admin staff here is smart enough and willing enough to learn Star Office, but in the absence of formal classes would have to figure it all out by themselves, which constitutes a buyin of prohibitive proportions - we can't afford to lose the productivity we would if all of a sudden everybody becomes unfamiliar with, say, their word processor.

OTOH, if Microsoft continues with this licensing madness it just may push the associated cost below the threshold. It's difficult to make a business case for such technical issues as DHCP over static IP addresses, (for example), because management doesn't speak the language. Telling the boss that the contract he just signed may be changed without his knowledge or permission whenever the holder wants to IS language he speaks, and it shouts "danger, Will Robinson, danger!"

[B Knotts]

Most stuff you could get by with...but for games...forget it. There are ways to run Windows within Linux, and there is WINE, to run some Windows programs directly in Linux...but neither will run most Windows games, because they use Microsoft's proprietary DirectX stuff, which hasn't yet been completely reverse-engineered.

[Big Dan]

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?

One solution to run three top Operating systems? Buy a Mac computer (iBook or iMac) and then get Virtual PC ($100) to run Windows. Your Mac would run Mac OS X which is BSD/Unix based with all their nice free software, you get all the Mac ease-of-use, plus you can run Windows in emulation.

I've got it running and it works beautifully, even getting the Blue Screen of Death in Windows every so often! Can't get more realistic than that.

-- A re-invigorated Mac user

[B Knotts]

I've never used MS Works, so I can't respond to the comparison. It's my opinion that for the vast majority of office workers, Star Office would be adequate. However, migrating is another story. That would be a big pain, currently.

I think StarOffice must have a lot of MS Office's functionality, since it reads MS Office files pretty well (mainly there are formatting issues, not functionality).

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The open-source WINE project helped out there.

It is true that WINE Is Not an Emulator. WINE will run Solitaire.exe, maybe, but it won't run Word.

It is a lot harder than it sounds to replace all of Window's DLL's with Linux equivalents. Withouth specs and source code one could say that it is impossible.

I love Linux, and have used Win4Lin, but any Kluged-together Linux/Windows compromise will always suck. Too much overhead.

A comprehensive office suite is all that is keeping Linux from taking over the desktop. WordPerfect is pretty good, but it is not open source. Abi Word is almost there as far as word processing goes, but the rest of the office functions are still missing.

[AFreeBird]

willing enough to learn Star Office, but in the absence of formal classes would have to figure it all out by themselves, which constitutes a buyin of prohibitive proportions - we can't afford to lose the productivity we would if all of a sudden everybody becomes unfamiliar with, say, their word processor.

You can get StarOffice for Windows. Install it along side Office and let them use it and become familiar with it, while still having Office as a quick and redily available fallback. If they then become comfortable with it the next step would be the OS. Of course you could start with LINUX on the server side first, run SAMBA and migrate files and data to the new NT server ;-). Then start migrating your general desktops.

Just a thought... but think of the cost savings once the initial learning curve and Windoze mentality has been overcome.

[Dominic Harr]

A comprehensive office suite is all that is keeping Linux from taking over the desktop.

There is a 'quiet' revolution going on in software. Java has become the language of choice for new software development.

The reason this matters to Linux?

Because the 'next generation' of software that will be offered to consumers in a year or three will work on Windows, Unix, Linux *and* Macs.

The next generation of software is 'platform independent'.

Altho almost nobody knows about this yet, outside of the software world.

[Dominic Harr]

MSFT lost its mind when it paid Madonna $15 million to use her song in the XP promotion......there must be something in the air in Redmond....

Microsoft can afford it, tho.

$15 mil is what, an hour's income to them?

But the entire add campaign seems lame. The 'Teletubby Land' green fields, etc, and people flying thru the air? Okay . . . doesn't sell *me*, anyway.

[Explorer89]

A comprehensive office suite is all that is keeping Linux from taking over the desktop.

Hmmmm, probably true, since that is what most people use their computers for. Personally, I run RedHat 7.0 at work, and Windows ME at home. (Putt-Putt Saves the Zoo doesn't work under Linux....) But I have been less than enthused with StarOffice. I don't do much word-processing, so it is enough for me to read attachments that people send. However, when I DO have to write a paper or proposal, it is a bit awkward, and I usually use my Windows partition.

Now, what I would REALLY like "Lindows" for would be for cross-compilers that I can only run under Windows. (And before flaming me about building my own cross-compiler, the flamer must have done so himself/herself! I lost my mind unsuccessfully building a StrongArm cross-compiler!)

[Uncle Fud]

Opera is great and worth the money. Much faster than either IE or Netscape. I love the multiple windows, one-button screen scaling and (especially) the blissful feeling I get when I hit the "G" key and see all the graphical clutter disappear.

[AMERIKA]

Because the 'next generation' of software that will be offered to consumers in a year or three will work on Windows, Unix, Linux *and* Macs.

Bill Gates promised us this back between windows 95 and windows 98.

Wasn't it called Cario?