Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

An Early Look at Freespire Linux 171

An anonymous reader writes "DesktopLinux.com takes an early look at Freespire Linux in a recent article. Linspire will be releasing their first version of Freespire, the first community Linux distribution to include many third-party proprietary codecs, drivers, and software. From the article: 'While I still have my doubts about the long-term wisdom of using proprietary software and drivers with Linux, I must say that if you feel you need to use such programs, Freespire makes it much easier than any other Linux distribution. And, when is all said and done, that's really what Freespire is all about -- making Linux as easy as possible for users.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Early Look at Freespire Linux

Comments Filter:
  • It's about time... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Geldon ( 444090 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @02:54PM (#15834061)
    Linspire has had some pretty good ideas when it comes to making Linux easy for the Windows user. But since it has not been free, I have been reluctent to recommend it to friends. I would like to see how this turns out...
  • Odd name (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Winckle ( 870180 ) <`ku.oc.elkcniw' `ta' `kram'> on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @02:56PM (#15834079) Homepage
    For a linux distro that contains software which is not "free"
  • More Bubbly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @02:58PM (#15834103)
    Is it just me, or do Linux Desktops seem to be following the Windows trend? They seem to be getting more bubbly. Take me back to the days of BlackBox
  • Re:More Bubbly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BecomingLumberg ( 949374 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @03:04PM (#15834159)
    I agree Linux is going that way, but familiarity and 'good' looks are the only way to start converting the non-geeks. And there are plenty of nuts and bolts distros.

    Eye candy is very appealing to the mainstream user, and will help A LOT to increase Linux's usage and familiarity.

  • Re:More Bubbly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by B11 ( 894359 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @03:20PM (#15834287)
    I don't know about you, but it's nice to have a system that isn't ugly. Of course, the first thing I did when I installed ubuntu was change the theme and get rid of the brown. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? Of course now, it's sort of their claim to fame, and they can't change it now, but I wonder how many "regular" users are put off by unbuntu altogether, right off the bat?
  • Re:Odd name (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuantumFTL ( 197300 ) * on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @03:44PM (#15834452)
    It is the perhaps unfortunate nature of the english language that two, entirely separate concepts are both given the same name - free. The target audience of this distribution does not care about source code or software politics. They want a tool that they can use to get work done, and they want it on the cheap. For them, the name Freespire is good, as the point of the distribution is that it does not cost money. Whether or not it is Stallman approved means less to them than if it is "kid tested and mother approved."
  • Re:nice quip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aixou ( 756713 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:06PM (#15834608)
    Nice quip, served you well.

    You appear to be misinformed however. Freespire will be released in two distinct versions:

    One containing entirely free software, and one containing proprietary codecs (paid for and licensed by Linspire).
    The user gets to choose which he uses.

    Hence the "Free" -- freedom of choice to opt into one of two free (as in beer) choices: a completely free (as in speech and beer) version, and a free (just as in beer) version.
    Seems pretty free to me.

    Any questions?
  • by aixou ( 756713 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:11PM (#15834640)
    One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:

    legality.

    Freespire uses fully licensed codecs (paid for by Linspire), whereas EasyUbuntu takes the gray area route of not using fully legal stuff.

    Since Linspire is footing the bill for the codecs, I think we can all see which choice is both more practical for the user and more ethical.
  • Re:Kickstart (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Almahtar ( 991773 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:18PM (#15834689) Journal
    Much of the concern over the use of proprietary material is that it'll eventually be relied-upon with no alternative. If that happens and then the owner of the proprietary software has a change of heart or goes belly up, there are problems. For example: if everyone uses ATI's fglrx drivers, there's no need for the open source ones. If ATI goes out of business, everyone's using this huge black box to power their ATI cards. Bug fixes would have to be in the form of unofficial binary hacks, and new feature implementation is next to impossible. By not using any non-free (as in speech) components, such a calamity can be avoided.
  • Nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by twitter ( 104583 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @11:55PM (#15837231) Homepage Journal

    Try this: charge a newbie Windows-user for something like the Gimp, pocket their money, point them to the official website where they can get it for free, explain what you did was perfectly legal and then watch their reaction. Think they'll pay you again? No matter how legal it is for Linspire to run their CnR thingie, *nix-users don't want to pay for free software and a great many view it as a (legal) scam

    If all you do is point, the user has a right to be pissed. That's not what Linspire or any other Linux company is doing. Most users expect you to sit down and make sure everything works before they pay you. If it does work, they will be happy to fork over the cash because you just saved them the difference between your hour's wage and the cost of a non free program that does the same thing, $600 - 40 = $560.

    What the commercial Linux companies are doing is packaging free software so that it works together. That's a big job. They have to modify configuration files, compile and do other nasty tasks. Debian does it though volunteers and is big on user freedom. Linspire is using that base and adding non free junk. M$ takes non free junk, most of which comes from competitors, and passes it along.

    What the user wants is something that works. The Linspire, Xandros and Mepis approach has it's benefits and dangers. The benefit is that all your non free hardware and popular software can work right out of the box. My wife loves watching You Tube with Mepis and it's much easier to set up than Debian proper. The dangers are all those associated with non free junk, a lack of long term credibility and difficulty upgrading. Binary blobs are just as sticky and brittle in the Linux world as they are elsewhere, though the sane separation of user and system files helps a lot. Upgrading Mepis is just as easy as installing it in the first place. The hard part is when you want a program that's not included. In the worst case, you have to download 500 MB of dependencies and they break your non free crappo. In the best case, you just install the newest CD and then get all your favorite applications. A completely free system does not have that issue. It can be incrementally upgraded for six to ten years, without fear of breaking installed applications, until the hardware is so obsolete it's not worth the electricity it eats. You should also note that it's easier for the distribution to not bother with non free junk that does not work. Distributions that make non free stuff go are having to do a lot of extra work, sometimes completely in the dark, to make sure it all works together. They also have to trust the non free software maker in a way that you should not. For most users, none of the above problems is a big deal and they are happy to fork over the money it takes to make sure things work right. Happy in slavery, sometimes and sometimes not.

    What users really resent is the way M$ makes you feel like a sucker. You can go full out, buying nothing but "professional" versions of the software, the most expensive hardware AND IT STILL MIGHT NOT WORK. The more you add, the more likely it is something won't get along with something else and the system degrades with time no matter what you do. With a 12 minute half life on any network, no M$ system lasts very long. The difference between a Linspire "sucker" and a M$ "sucker" is about $1,000 is software and hardware costs. The addage is, "Linux" makes a new computer out of trash and Windoze makes a new computer into trash." DRM in Vista are going to make things even worse.

  • by Fordiman ( 689627 ) <fordiman @ g m a i l . com> on Thursday August 03, 2006 @01:51AM (#15837625) Homepage Journal
    I don't see what your problem with linspire is. What you're paying for is time savings, essentially. You're paying $99 for a system that doesn't need much anything in the way of setup, and another $99 per year for guaranteed-working builds of free software (something I've found is lacking in the wikiality of community-assembled builds of OSS).

    Usually, linux needs careful configuration to get it working well, and when it's done, it works better than anything else. But it takes time and patience.

    Not dissing OSS or anything, but the QC is great with Linspire. I don't use it, but I understand what they are charging for.

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...