backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 23 comment(s) - last by bldckstark.. on Aug 16 at 4:12 PM
Linspire released Freespire 1.0 several days before LinuxWorld, but was at the event to promote Freespire

Linspire is attending LinuxWorld to promote its newly released Freespire 1.0 Desktop Linux operating system.  Freespire 1.0 is a Debian-based desktop Linux OS that offers the open source software along with proprietary drivers that are legally-licensed.  Although Linux veterans sometimes are weary of using Linspire, the company claims that Freespire is "designed to be powerful enough for sophisticated Linux users and developers."  Around 100 community and "industry VIPs" worked on Freespire over the past two years.  Information taken from the official Freespire web site:

As a free, community-driven distribution, Freespire should appeal to both users and developers who want to see an easier-to-use desktop Linux that, out-of-the-box, supports more hardware, software and media formats. However, for those who prefer to use only open source solutions and don't need legal support for MP3s, DVDs, Windows Media, QuickTime, Java, Flash, and so on, the OSS Edition of Freespire that is 100% open source provides an excellent alternative as well.  

There are some major differences between the Freespire and Linspire operating systems.  Some basic differences between the two:

Freespire is freely distributed but Linspire must be purchased.

Freespire has more of a community and developer focus -- Linspire has a consumer focus.
Since Freespire has been designed more for Linux veterans, there are more installation and configuration options available -- Linspire has default presets aimed more towards amateur users.

Linspire is the company best known for having its operating system put on lower end OEM computers that are available at retailer stores like Best Buy, Fry's and CompUSA.  One of Linspire's objectives is "Linux for the masses," which means trying to make Linux readily available while trying to eliminate the learning curve that Linux is sometimes known for.

The community-driven Freespire operating system is now available for free -- click here to be taken to the download site.  Linspire also has Freespire 1.0 OSS Edition, which is Freespire without any proprietary software. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I still dont get OSS
By Ringold on 8/15/2006 9:04:47 PM , Rating: 1
Whats the point? Why does anybody care if drivers are open or closed source if they just work, and work good? Or even more so, mp3 and the media stuff?

If its anything more than socialist pinko programmers way of having a tantrum over capitalism and closed source things and there actually is a legitimate reason to choose a crippled distro versus a fully enabled, ready-to-go distro, then somebody educate my Windows self. :)

/flamesuitOn

Hmm.. not enough..

/iddqd
/idbeholds




RE: I still dont get OSS
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/15/06, Rating: 0
RE: I still dont get OSS
By hondaman on 8/15/2006 10:10:44 PM , Rating: 4
When was the last time a binary driver got inserted into the linux kernel?

What a horrible example.

I too dont see the problem with closed source drivers, and its people who oppose this are the people, in part, retarding the growth and adoption of the linux desktop.

Nobody wants an OS that "kind of" works. People want it to work as well, if not better, than alternative OS's, and dimes to dollars, 99% of those people dont give a damn how its done.


RE: I still dont get OSS
By Ringold on 8/15/06, Rating: 0
RE: I still dont get OSS
By Ringold on 8/15/2006 10:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Disclaimer: Also aware that some companies get their money from service work related to usage or maintaining or whatever of the open-source programs.. But I'm as cynical of that as I am Microsoft making an OS with holes in it and then pushing its OneCare service so you can pay for them to cover these holes ;) C'mon! Issue patches available for all, not virus definition updates!


RE: I still dont get OSS
By LumbergTech on 8/15/2006 9:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
wow, you really dug up some old anti-socialist terminology there, what , do you have a problem with open source?


RE: I still dont get OSS
By Ringold on 8/15/06, Rating: 0
RE: I still dont get OSS
By AntiTomZandmasher2 on 8/15/2006 11:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, OSS is quite communistic and socialistic. The very notion of products being made by people "for fun" rather than for pay is a wrench in the gears of a capitalist industry. I recently attended a Ballmer speech where he outlined the challenges of competing with an "invisible" competitor who could charge $0 for its products.

Regardless of the means, one must note the success of OSS as a development style. The quality of code produced is amazing when compared to proprietary ones. Among the people I know running Windows, most are running OSS applications (VLC, Firefox, Thunderbird or Evolution, GIMP, Openoffice, etc.).

As for releases of pure OSS distros, it's a result of a mix of practical, political, and legal reasons rather than the "Capital-pig free" ideology espoused by Richard Stallman. Most Linux users are practical and aren't zealots; zealots just get most of the press time.

Binary modules and proprietary software are difficult to maintain by their closed nature. Whereas Windows has a consistent kernel which guarantees that software will be compatible with that release, Linux distros update their kernels regularly. There is great difficulty in testing closed source apps for compatibility with an ever-changing kernel and the distributor must wait for the creating company to update the software.

Although I'm not too familiar on the legal aspects of the GPL, I've seen a few Newsforge articles on the illegality of distributing binary modules with the kernel (or something to that extent). In any case, proprietary software such as the mp3 decoder, dvd decryptors, and others are under patents which would prohibit them from being bundled.

Then again, there's a vocal minority of users who demand a OSS by default package. The distros must balance the needs of the whole community with the needs of vocal core supporters and compromise.

I think that sometimes people overestimate the motivating factors of capitalism. Sure, someone who works for money should be pretty motivated, but from what I saw when I worked at MS, plenty of people just wanted to do a decent job (good enough to keep the job) and not go beyond; they had kids and a life outside of work that they valued more. The guys coding OSS apps are (some of them at least) social rejects who are (mostly) single motivated by the fun of solving problems and playing with fellow hackers.


RE: I still dont get OSS
By Ringold on 8/15/2006 11:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's that middle ground compromise you mentioned that they hopefully will push more in the future, and not even mention OSS in the same breath as a mainstream product. Getting a full array of simple browser plugins to work in Ubuntu isn't at all for the uninitiated linux user as I found out and reaching some legal agreement that changed that aspect could really change the game for linux at as whole. Being beholden to the vocal minority you mentioned only gives it a bad rap.

And I actually drink the closed-source Opera cool-aid myself :) But got Firefox installed all the same; it runs better on my laptop for whatever reason, but Opera I've noted collects virtually no spyware compared to Firefox (under my usage). VLC is sweet for anything except x264, but OpenOffice could use some serious, serious optimization work. Good start though. And 7zip with just a wee bit more polish would crush WinRAR. No doubt about it, definitely some successes.

Though I really can't imagine making Apache for fun.. unless there's an easter-egg with secret ASCI porn hidden in there..


RE: I still dont get OSS
By mindless1 on 8/16/2006 4:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
You are severely deluded. The idea that people work hard for (more) money is completely untrue. In fact, the hardest working people tend to make the least.

Those people's hard work and motivation does not create wealth, if they get rich they end up taking away wealth from others. Receiving very very low pay would be the only way to not take from others. This is the market as it stands, the opposite of communism and the whole reason why we reject communism, because being clever, smart, or lucky, determines wealth, but most certainly not hard work.


RE: I still dont get OSS
By AmbroseAthan on 8/16/2006 9:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be a pain, but that depends completely on the particular job. If any of the brokers in my firm works extra time to seal some extra trades with clients, you can sure bet they are getting a nice extra bit of cash. I'm not a broker, but in my position in the firm if I work harder I could easily be justified for asking for a pay raise, and likely get it. Just for working hard.

Of course I am smart, clever, and lucky also! /wink


RE: I still dont get OSS
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are severely deluded. The idea that people work hard for (more) money is completely untrue. In fact, the hardest working people tend to make the least.

All you have to do is look at the history of the American middle-class to know that your statement is wrong. Most of these folks are from families and individuals that immigrated from Europe or elsewhere and made a living through hard work. And you see how this continues to this day with hard-working immigrants in the US. I suppose the same is true in other countries throughout the world.
quote:
Those people's hard work and motivation does not create wealth, if they get rich they end up taking away wealth from others. Receiving very very low pay would be the only way to not take from others.

This is entirely untrue. People who create businesses, and get rich in doing so, create wealth also for others in society through several means, which include creating jobs, paying taxes, purchasing goods/services from other companies, and creating goods/services that other people or businesses and/or individuals need or want.

The idea that a rich person got that way by depriving lots of other people of their money may happen in some cases, e.g., fraud, some financial investments, gambling, etc. But the vast amount of economic activity that makes people wealthy is that which is related to successful businesses that "deprive" their customers of money in return for some useful good and/or service. I hardly think this is any kind of exploitation.

In your world, I think that no businesses would exist, which would mean that there would be little/no economic activity. This is a guarantee of poverty for all. We know this because it is both in our past history as well as currently existing in undeveloped nations throughout the world.


RE: I still dont get OSS
By Ringold on 8/16/2006 3:05:17 PM , Rating: 1
Mindless1, you either failed, deserved to fail, or never took the most basic of econ courses, or you're european.. in which case, your lack of economic understanding is totally understandable.

The largest fallacy in your statement is "if they get rich they end up taking away wealth from others", which is the common misconception in Europe.. which is why those idiots have some silly idea that if you limit working hours you somehow make more jobs, spreading the pie.

No, my friend, the pie grows. It's called productivity growth. Someone figures out how to do something slightly better than anybody else, or even better comes up with what the latest term seems to be, a 'disruptive technology', and totally changes the game. Such a thing, like the tractor over the horse-driven mechanisms, doesn't make the Catepillars of the world more rich at the expense of the farmers? are YOU deluded? They get rich, and so do the farmers, because now they can farm ten times as much!


Better stay in Europe, comrade. ;)


RE: I still dont get OSS
By stmok on 8/16/2006 1:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats the point? Why does anybody care if drivers are open or closed source if they just work, and work good? Or even more so, mp3 and the media stuff?


The point is to promote the freedom to choose what you want, on YOUR system. Have a think about the next time Microsoft initiates another inconvenient anti-piracy measure. What if you want to do something, and its held back because a company won't let you?

Granted, this may not mean much to the typical desktop user, but it means alot for developers and enthusiasts (hackers and garage developers), who wish to make their own modifications and share them.

One key advantage of having open drivers is seen in the video card department.

At the current state, both Nvidia and ATI/AMD are only releasing proprietary drivers. So what's wrong with that?

Every time there is a major change with the Kernel or Xorg (the component that handles graphics stuff in Linux/Unix), every user of ATI and Nvidia video cards must wait for those companies to release updates/patches. They won't work properly until they do. With open drivers, you'd usually have to wait a few hours or days...With closed, it may take months before Nvidia/ATI releases patches.

The 2nd one is, there is a debateable issue in regards to bundling closed drivers with Linux distros. Some see it as completely illegal. Others say its legal under some specifics. Either way, its a grey area that needs to be resolved.

Thirdly, if open-source Nvidia/ATI drivers existed (3D Acceleration support) would worked straight "out of the box". It means any Linux newbie won't need to manually install anything related to video drivers. That's one less step they have to go through in the setup process. (Hell, Windows does not have this ability, as Microsoft is NOT responsible for Nvidia or ATI driver development).

Forth, is security. Although there has yet to be a security issue due to closed video drivers, there has been a very critical issue with wireless drivers. There's a security hole with some closed wireless drivers that affects Windows and OSX. Hackers discovered the issue and have reported it to the respective manufacturers...As of yet, there doesn't seem to be a fix or workaround. If these were open, those hackers would contact the devs of that driver project, and they would work together to solve the issue quickly. Often, this is with hours to days...Compared to MONTHS for closed source! Have a think about that...Would you want your holes to be fixed in a short time OR would you prefer to wait for months while a manufacturer assigns people, and gets their engineers to recreate and fix the issue?

The other thing you mentioned is MP3 and "media stuff".

The problem here is, legality. In some countries, its illegal to use software that circumvent anti-copying technologies. The issue for DVDs is that Linux needs to circumvent those protections to offer playback.

Most codecs are closed proprietary stuff. And there are often catches in their license, such that they won't allow you to bundle them if you want to release your distro. They must be installed separately.

You see, if you want to offer the freedom to do anything with the software, you have to undergo through the legal obstacles. If you ignore them, you can expect a "cease and desist" letter from lawyers representing the company, who's drivers or codecs you are illegally distributing.

A typical desktop user doesn't read licenses and "End User License Agreements" (EULA) of the apps or OSs they install. If they did, you'd see how restrictive things really are. (and how its against what open-source stands for)...Often, you'll see that people don't care about such legal matters, they just want to use the software.

The point is to offer the freedom to choose what you want. Without relying on someone or being cornered by a company to pay for something you may not even need to begin with. Free from constraints. (It seems most companies using open-source tools, see this (and the flexibility) as more important than the cost...Which is often $0)

This is why open codecs and drivers exist. Ogg Vobis is one example by the open community, to provide an alternative to MP3. The sound quality between them is the same, its that no one owns Ogg Vobis, and you can use this codec/standard in your own applications without worrying about legal matters.

In regards to ATI and Nvidia open drivers, work is underway for 3D Acceleration support (2D is already supported). On the ATI side, they have made some progress, but the latest ATI cards aren't supported. On the Nvidia side, they have begun hacking and trying out a bunch of Nvidia cards. (essentially, playing around with them and see what makes them tick, and how to call various functions).

Hopefully, once AMD completes its take-over of ATI, they'll open the drivers. (Intel has already done it with their IGP solutions...granted, they perform badly for a gamer, but its good enough for most desktop users).


RE: I still dont get OSS
By MercenaryForHire on 8/16/2006 9:24:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Whats the point? Why does anybody care if drivers are open or closed source if they just work, and work good? Or even more so, mp3 and the media stuff?


I know this sounds like a pretty far-fetched example, but what if there was a remotely exploitable hole in the drivers for a wireless card? Since the drivers are closed, it's vulnerable - but if it was open, anyone could have looked at that code and gone "wtf, vulnerability" and patched it right away. Or if it was built from scratch *cough* OpenBSD atheros drivers *cough* it just wouldn't be vulnerable at all.

Oh, and bonus points for the Doom references. :D


Click here???
By Chadder007 on 8/15/2006 10:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
click here to be taken to the download site.

...I can't click there. There is no link.




RE: Click here???
By stmok on 8/16/2006 12:01:57 AM , Rating: 2
HERE!
http://wiki.freespire.org/index.php/Download_Frees...

I tried this distro out, it does have DVD and other W32codec support "out of the box"...But its bloated. (slower than Ubuntu and OpenSUSE).

I guess its OK for ver 1.0


legal stuff
By mforce on 8/16/2006 11:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
In the OSS world there are those that care way too much about the legal stuff and the GPL , BSD or whatever licensing is used . They won't put Java in because of it's licensing , they won't have GNU GPL software together with the Solaris kernel because of licensing and they won't even put the bloody mp3 support in because of licensing . I'm really fed up with these people . That's why Linux doesn't just work out of the box .
As someone said the average user could care less if it's open source or not .
There is however one problem with closed source . It's very slow to respond to what people ask for . Skype fot Linux still doesn't even support the now default sound system , ALSA ( it's in the beta though .... but sure took them long enough ) . Now if it were open source like Wengo is for instance someone would just hack ALSA .
Oh and one more thing , open source lets you port software to other platforms . Maybe you want the program to work on Solaris or maybe you want it in Linux for PowerPC , it's a lot easier with open source . If it's closed source you've got to wait and pray .




RE: legal stuff
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 2:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the OSS world there are those that care way too much about the legal stuff and the GPL , BSD or whatever licensing is used . They won't put Java in because of it's licensing , they won't have GNU GPL software together with the Solaris kernel because of licensing and they won't even put the bloody mp3 support in because of licensing . I'm really fed up with these people . That's why Linux doesn't just work out of the box .

Software licensing is a serious concern for companies, since if the licensing is not right, then a company that uses OSS exposes itself to potentially serious liability. I agree this is a non-issue for individuals, but for companies, the licensing is rightly one of the most important considerations.
quote:
There is however one problem with closed source . It's very slow to respond to what people ask for

This is not a function of the business model (open-source or commercial), it is a function of the particular supporting organization. There are some companies selling commercial software that are highly responsive, while some that are very slow. Same in the open source world - some projects respond fast, while others are very slow.
quote:
Oh and one more thing , open source lets you port software to other platforms . Maybe you want the program to work on Solaris or maybe you want it in Linux for PowerPC , it's a lot easier with open source

Hate to break it to you, but most end-users, like 99.9995% (I did a survey - just kidding), do not care to port software from one platform to another. Instead, we would like someone else to do that work, so that we can just run the software. If demand exists for a particular applicationon a new platform, a commercial program would be no more or less likely to be ported than an open-source program.


No link?
By MarkHark on 8/15/2006 11:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
^^^^




FreeBSD & Solaris.
By Runiteshark on 8/16/2006 4:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, I'll stick to FreeBSD or its brother, Solaris.






Weary of using Linspire
By PrinceGaz on 8/16/2006 9:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although Linux veterans sometimes are weary of using Linspire...


I'm weary of using Linspire too, I can't take much more of it :p




Money, money, money
By bldckstark on 8/16/2006 4:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
If it ain't for money, it ain't no hurry. You want it for free from a company who's primary purpose is to make money? I'm sorry, you will have to wait.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki