PDA

View Full Version : Bad move for Linspire?



Phantasman
February 27th, 2006, 02:38 AM
I lost respect for Linspire (even more) when I saw this

What a deal!!! (http://www.oooff.com/openoffice.html)

DigitalDuality
February 27th, 2006, 02:42 AM
I despise that company, simply b/c they do nothing but prey on people's ignorance and further re-enforce how "awesome" MS is..

yeah, horrible idea, but the people that buy into it probably won't realize the difference. I'm suprised the company has stayed around as long as it has.

Xian
February 27th, 2006, 02:47 AM
The phrase "do nothing but prey" is a litle harsh and unrealistic.
No need to just bad mouth people.... hopefully we'e a little better than that.

But who would name a product 'OOoFf!'??

Qrk
February 27th, 2006, 02:52 AM
Thanks for the post. I just deleted Openoffice and Firefox from my Ubuntu. I can't believe Ubuntu has pirated software in it by default!

Linux is more expensive than Windows. Ubuntu duped me with free download, but then I had to buy a Linux licence from SCO for $699 and the legit copies of Firefox and Open Office for $29.95. I should have just bought Windows XP pro for $195 and MS Office for $399... I would have saved over $135.

***New from "Get the Facts"***
Microsoft Windows is 18.5% cheaper on the home desktop!!

xequence
February 27th, 2006, 02:52 AM
OH MY...

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!

Before Linspire was fine and stuff. But now I hate them with a passion.

Stormy Eyes
February 27th, 2006, 02:56 AM
But who would name a product 'OOoFf!'??

I know a few words to describe such people, but I'll behave myself.

Jucato
February 27th, 2006, 02:57 AM
Thanks for the post. I just deleted Openoffice and Firefox from my Ubuntu. I can't believe Ubuntu has pirated software in it by default!

Linux is more expensive than Windows. Ubuntu duped me with free download, but then I had to buy a Linux licence from SCO for $699 and the legit copies of Firefox and Open Office for $29.95. I should have just bought Windows XP pro for $195 and MS Office for $399... I would have saved over $135.

***New from "Get the Facts"***
Microsoft Windows is 18.5% cheaper on the home desktop!!
LoL!! \\:D/
But really, why Linspire would choose to sell these is beyond me...

MethodOne
February 27th, 2006, 03:03 AM
It may be just an overpriced compilation. Some other vendors are selling compilations of open-source applications on CD for less. I just prefer to download them from the respective sites (Windows) or from a distributor (Linux).

xequence
February 27th, 2006, 03:05 AM
I am just so annoyed...

I know its legal to sell that. But its just unethical and stupid!

Almost ALL computers come with a web browser. Linux comes with Konquereur or Firefox. Windows comes with IE. Just use one of them to download another browser you want instead of paying for two free things.

bjweeks
February 27th, 2006, 03:08 AM
" * Limited time offer" rofl

xequence
February 27th, 2006, 03:14 AM
http://xs70.xs.to/pics/06091/money1.PNG

Master Shake
February 27th, 2006, 03:24 AM
I wonder if any of that money is going to support the development of those platforms. If it is, then great, no problems here..


But I suspect otherwise.

adamb10
February 27th, 2006, 03:27 AM
I take it Linspire isnt selling so they are using other methods...

Jedeye
February 27th, 2006, 03:48 AM
http://xs70.xs.to/pics/06091/money1.PNG
LOL

cdhotfire
February 27th, 2006, 04:02 AM
http://xs70.xs.to/pics/06091/money1.PNG

Owned!?

aysiu
February 27th, 2006, 04:05 AM
http://xs70.xs.to/pics/06091/money1.PNG This is the funniest post I've ever "read" on these forums!

raggamuffin
February 27th, 2006, 04:07 AM
the whole selling-GPL-sofware-like-that thing is bad enough....but "OOoFf!"?.....that sounds like some sort of funky Swedish furniture you have to assemble yourself...(no offense to any Swedes)...

TrailerTrash
February 27th, 2006, 04:07 AM
I wonder how many dumb asses will buy that! I wonder is Linspire is hurtin for some ca$h? :-k :-# :confused:

briancurtin
February 27th, 2006, 04:07 AM
HAHAHHAA that picture is great

mstlyevil
February 27th, 2006, 04:08 AM
Has anyone thought that maybe Linspire is selling professional support and printed manuals instead of the programs themselves. If that is what they are offering then it is no different that those who decide to use Ubuntu's paid support.

briancurtin
February 27th, 2006, 04:14 AM
Has anyone thought that maybe Linspire is selling professional support and printed manuals instead of the programs themselves. If that is what they are offering then it is no different that those who decide to use Ubuntu's paid support.
i thought about that for about one second, then realized it was a waste of time. they tell you that they give you a "Documentation CD-ROM with complete OpenOffice.org user guide and Flash demo" which isnt even their own stuff either, i wouldnt think.

Qrk
February 27th, 2006, 04:19 AM
Has anyone thought that maybe Linspire is selling professional support and printed manuals instead of the programs themselves. If that is what they are offering then it is no different that those who decide to use Ubuntu's paid support.

Except that Ubuntu clearly tells users that it is Free.

I don't mind this too much though, most people know that both OO.o and Firefox are free and Free, so Linspire isn't really duping many. They should say that on their website, however.

In fact, for people looking for an office suite without an internet connection or any friends with one, that live in the contintental US and also want a web browser, this might be an OK deal. You can buy OO.o CD's on OO.o's website as well, and Firefox Cd's on their website.

mstlyevil
February 27th, 2006, 04:21 AM
Mepis is going to repackage Ubuntu and add some codecs and call it their own. We actually do not know what Linsipre has added to these programs (for better or worse) so I think it is a little premature to start slamming them for it.

Qrk
February 27th, 2006, 04:26 AM
Mepis is going to repackage Ubuntu and add some codecs and call it their own. We actually do not know what Linsipre has added to these programs (for better or worse) so I think it is a little premature to start slamming them for it.

Now there is a big difference here. Mepis isn't based off of Ubuntu, Warren Woodford only said that he was considering it. Also, Mepis isn't just a debian + codecs, it has many unique features.

And finally, Mepis is free, with optional registration.

mstlyevil
February 27th, 2006, 04:35 AM
Now there is a big difference here. Mepis isn't based off of Ubuntu, Warren Woodford only said that he was considering it. Also, Mepis isn't just a debian + codecs, it has many unique features.

And finally, Mepis is free, with optional registration.

The point is still valid. We just do not know what Linspire has added to the software.

Qrk
February 27th, 2006, 04:46 AM
Not really, Mepis is free and Free, and Mr. Woodford tells you that.

OOoFf is not, nor do they tell you that it is.

And their website doesn't list any features they added (except for a firefox theme).
Its not as bad a changing the name to make it seem like they made it, but it is a "Bad deal" otherwise know as a ripoff.

Iandefor
February 27th, 2006, 04:54 AM
Eh, it's not that different than them repackaging a bunch of Free Software and then selling it for whatever outrageous price they'll charge for it.

aysiu
February 27th, 2006, 04:59 AM
Mepis has a lot of stuff that's specific to it.

It's based on Knoppix and owes a lot to Knoppix and Debian in turn, but it is definitely its own operating system, and Warren has worked extremely hard on it.

The Mepis OS center lets you reinstall Grub at the click of a button. (Look at the hoops we have to jump through in Ubuntu to do the same thing (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=24113).)

The graphical installer for Mepis sure beats Ubuntu's text-based graphical installer. It is a live CD and installer CD in one, something that many on these forums have erroneously said is not possible, as that much software supposedly would not fit on one CD.

It lets you choose which kernel you want to run at the outset.

There's a lot to Mepis that makes it an entirely new OS. It is not just Knoppix with a few pyramid logos. If Mepis were to soon be based off of Ubuntu, it would also not be Ubuntu with a few pyramid logos.

Also, Mepis is honest about how it makes its money. It lets you know straight off the bat that you can download ISOs for free, but it helps if you get a subscription to get testing stuff (and support the project). It also lets you know straight up front that the boxed sets of Mepis are boxed and pretty with manuals, and that's why they cost money (and that money supports the project).

mstlyevil
February 27th, 2006, 05:02 AM
Mepis has a lot of stuff that's specific to it.

It's based on Knoppix and owes a lot to Knoppix and Debian in turn, but it is definitely its own operating system, and Warren has worked extremely hard on it.

The Mepis OS center lets you reinstall Grub at the click of a button. (Look at the hoops we have to jump through in Ubuntu to do the same thing (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=24113).)

The graphical installer for Mepis sure beats Ubuntu's text-based graphical installer. It is a live CD and installer CD in one, something that many on these forums have erroneously said is not possible, as that much software supposedly would not fit on one CD.



It lets you choose which kernel you want to run at the outset.

There's a lot to Mepis that makes it an entirely new OS. It is not just Knoppix with a few pyramid logos. If Mepis were to soon be based off of Ubuntu, it would also not be Ubuntu with a few pyramid logos.

Also, Mepis is honest about how it makes its money. It lets you know straight off the bat that you can download ISOs for free, but it helps if you get a subscription to get testing stuff (and support the project). It also lets you know straight up front that the boxed sets of Mepis are boxed and pretty with manuals, and that's why they cost money (and that money supports the project).

The same exact strategy Novell is now using with Suse. Good point.

TechSonic
February 27th, 2006, 06:02 AM
I know a few words to describe such people, but I'll behave myself.

I'll do the same.

briancurtin
February 27th, 2006, 06:07 AM
The same exact strategy Novell is now using with Suse. Good point.
they've done that for a while though

Zeroangel
February 27th, 2006, 06:35 AM
LOL, that's pretty funny. In my eyes, something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Let's say that I spent 3 hours looking up and comparing OO.o and FF with IE, that's 3 hours that I could've spent working and making $30.00. Yet, if by some miracle I had stumbled onto that site and decided 'hey, that's a good deal' and so spent $30.00 ordering those things. Then the gain/losses would've evened theirselves out. Sure I am still ignorant, but I still managed to get a better browser than what I was currently using (in this case IE) or saved myself from putting up ~$150 for MS Office.

I learned this principle from the time I spent playing runescape. In a player driven economy, you could make something, advertise it at a minor discount and have someone buy it right away, or you could spent an extra hour at the banks trying to sell whatever you were selling at a 'fair' price, when that time could have actually been spent producing more resources or doing something fun.

Hobz
February 27th, 2006, 09:46 AM
This is what they are upto now to make a buck out of OOo:-

http://www.comparesoft.com/products.html

And heres the attempt at justification:- http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=415990

In fact there even disagreement between Linspire members and Linspire about this:- http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=420272

Oh, BTW, I didnt just come here to bash Linspire, I think Ubuntu rocks, its the best distro Ive used - ever (and Ive tried quite a few) !!

GreyFox503
February 27th, 2006, 09:50 AM
But who would name a product 'OOoFf!'??
First of all, the name "OOoFf" is hilarious! Nice pic, xequence :)

Second of all, this is very similar to another post I just made, so I'll just quote myself:


Obligatory GNU link:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html


The GNU guys are the ones who wrote the GPL, under which most OSS is licensed. I'm not a lawyer, but I think if they didn't want people selling GPL'ed programs, they could have put it in there.

Instead, they not only allow people to re-sell free software, they encourage it. Check out the link for a detailed explanation.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

I think it's fine if they want to sell software. If they think they can make money doing people a service, great. If they're just a big rip-off, then hey, no one has to buy from them.

It's true that some people could conceivably buy this software without knowing it's available elsewhere. But what are the chances that this is the first and only website they run into when looking for software products?? Surely OpenOffice would come up sooner than these guys when searching for an office suite, for example.
Hey, maybe some people just want to show their support by buying the product. I'll admit this is even dumber (yes, I used that word) than the comparesoft stuff, but if they want to sell it, let them try. Anyone looking for firefox or openoffice will figure out these programs are free before reaching this page.

BoyOfDestiny
February 27th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Hmm, I'm ok with this.

People who buy this when it is available for free (haha for them I guess?) Enough said about that.

What I really hope is that they give a % back to these projects.

Although if they don't, in a way they are offering free advertising and perhaps add "legitimacy" (for those listening to a certain large company's HOGWASH) to the software since it's in a store sitting on a shelf. I just hope after they take it home, it is clear that the software is open source (show a license agreement with the installer etc or whatever they've done with these apps.)

Others may see it and think, hey I can search google maybe download it... Lo and behold, turns out it's free and for many OS's.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, eventually companies doing this will have to do something else I think. Once there is awareness and essentially everyone on the block could offer something like that (i.e. kid next door with internet and a burner). Things will change. Just one of those "growing pain" periods I guess.

GreyFox503
February 27th, 2006, 11:26 AM
Others may see it and think, hey I can search google maybe download it... Lo and behold, turns out it's free and for many OS's.

ROFL! I can see it now...

A normal Windows user might just want to download these firefox and openoffice programs illegally without paying, so they hop on a torrent and download them, thinking they're so smart...

And they never realize they were free to begin with. :)

GreyFox503
February 27th, 2006, 11:34 AM
One last thing: Linspire didn't change the names of these programs, so they're easy to look up. As a matter of fact, right in the middle of the advertisement, in large print, is the phrase "OpenOffice.org", suggesting it's a website... which of course, if you visit, you will quickly learn that it's available for free download.

angkor
February 27th, 2006, 01:22 PM
* Continental United States Only*....Ah damn...I'm out.

:D

xequence
February 27th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Dont miss out on Linspires special......
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/wam9468/money1.png

Buy 1, 2, 3, ooooo what the hell....buy 4 at that awesome price. Please dont pass this deal up.

Sales goes off soon. Dont wait!

But on a serious note.....Dose it come with a free CNR for a year or something? If people will buy it and they can make a buck on it then go for it.

Hey, cool, someone used my image on the linspire site!

I feel so special.

http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=420272

super
February 27th, 2006, 01:34 PM
they won't get my money! cause i'm SUCKA-FREE!!

commodore
February 27th, 2006, 02:01 PM
It should be in the GPL that you can't sell a product for more than it's original cost. Linspire are just people who want to earn money. And they don't care about Linux. Linspire is a different looking Windows that can't run Windows apps.

GeneralZod
February 27th, 2006, 02:05 PM
Can we stop casting slurs at people whose viewpoints differ from our own? Like it or not, the GPL explicitly states that you can charge as much as you want or GPL software - in fact, it encourages this. Presumably, RMS thought long and hard on this and came to the conclusion that this way would be for the best.

Also, Linspire (like Redhat and Novell) apparently commits a good amount of work upstream. I agree that the CEO of Linspire probably sees Linux merely as a way of making money, but they are not total leeches.

jc87
February 27th, 2006, 02:11 PM
It should be in the GPL that you can't sell a product for more than it's original cost.

Someone please correct me (or shoot me , what works better for you) if i“m wrong but i think you can sell GPL software for much money as you want (if you respect the license) , free software is about freedom not price.

By the way , calling fags to Linspire folks i personally think is a bit rude , and unnecessary , they are in their right to sell it , you may not like it , but that doest“t mean it is wrong , if you want someone to bash Billy Boy is always a good choice ;) .

nocturn
February 27th, 2006, 02:24 PM
This is what they are upto now to make a buck out of OOo:-

http://www.comparesoft.com/products.html

And heres the attempt at justification:- http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=415990


Thanks for the link.

Not to be the devils advocate, but I don't see anything wrong with comparesoft. They box existing products, maybe include some manuals. Which is pretty much the same as SuSE and Mandriva do for boxed sets...

As long as OO and the others remain available Free, there is no problem with this.

commodore
February 27th, 2006, 02:32 PM
I know it's legal, but don't they have any brains at all? I mean they should see that they have done no work for making that software so they shouldn't sell it. A normal human would understand it's not OK to ask money for someone else's work. It's just the stupid materialistic world. People care only and only about money.

DrFunkenstein
February 27th, 2006, 02:54 PM
I know it's legal, but don't they have any brains at all?

I'm pretty sure they do.



I mean they should see that they have done no work for making that software so they shouldn't sell it.

Huh? Selling software they didn't make is what about every linux distribution is doing, which is perfeclty legal and legitamit.



A normal human would understand it's not OK to ask money for someone else's work.

Not if that someone else picks a license that allowas exactly this, it isn't.



It's just the stupid materialistic world. People care only and only about money.
Blah.

P.S.: I find the use of the word ****** in a deragatory manner deeply offensive.

P.P.S.: I get the feeling that the original poster is on a personal crusade against Linspire, which is pretty silly, imho.

tmahmood
February 27th, 2006, 03:20 PM
but the thing is they are lieing! they are saying OO & FF will cost people $49.95 and they are selling them for $29 ... thats cheat... :mad:

mstlyevil
February 27th, 2006, 03:37 PM
but the thing is they are lieing! they are saying OO & FF will cost people $49.95 and they are selling them for $29 ... thats cheat... :mad:

I believe they are saying that they normally charge $49.95 for the bundle not that OO.o or Mozilla charge for it. Look, in the business comunity support and manuals are important and if you download OO.o and Firefox you get neither of these. Linspire is selling a service, not the product itself. Most of you are looking at it from a end users point of view and not a sys admin or IT professional point of view. If they can pay a small flat fee and recieve support that might cost them a lot more at the hourly rate, they saved the company money. Not everyone who buys this is stupid or do not know it is available for free but they want the pressed CD, the printed manuals and the free support that comes with it. Also as previously stated, Linspire has given back to OSS both finacially and in submitting bug fixes.

Bandit
February 27th, 2006, 03:44 PM
Normally I would be OK with seeing this, since many people dont have broad band to download OpenOffice.org. But Linspire does not support OO.o or Firefox like they do with NVU.
So I think its pretty lame to charge almost 30USD for this. I mean, geez here.. Its only costing them 5cents per disc.. The rest is pure profit since they have never supported OO.o or Fx in any monetary situation.

It is perfectly legal to sell this software at any price they wish as long as they can provide you with the source code upon your request as per the GPL v2.0.

But @ 29.95 I thinks it is little un-ethical..

Cheers,
Joey

DigitalDuality
February 27th, 2006, 03:49 PM
i would rather donate half my money to the mozilla foundation that give linspire a single red penny.

egon spengler
February 27th, 2006, 04:00 PM
Good for them, people sell Linux cds all the time and nobody complains, why should this be any different? I just glanced over linuxshop.co.uk (http://www.thelinuxshop.co.uk/catalog/index.php) and osdepot.com (http://www.osdepot.com/osc/) and I didn't see any notice from either of them informing potential customers that their products are available for free elsewhere, I doubt they'd get knocked for that and so I don't see why Linspire should

Zeroangel
February 27th, 2006, 04:31 PM
Normally I would be OK with seeing this, since many people dont have broad band to download OpenOffice.org. But Linspire does not support OO.o or Firefox like they do with NVU.
So I think its pretty lame to charge almost 30USD for this. I mean, geez here.. Its only costing them 5cents per disc.. The rest is pure profit since they have never supported OO.o or Fx in any monetary situation.

It is perfectly legal to sell this software at any price they wish as long as they can provide you with the source code upon your request as per the GPL v2.0.

But @ 29.95 I thinks it is little un-ethical..

Cheers,
Joey
If you think that's outrageous you should take a look at this site:
http://www.comparesoft.com/products.html

This guy is trying to sell each product seperately, and for a high price. That's OO.o, GIMPshop, and Firefox that they're selling right there. He's claiming that he can get these products on the shelves of big retailers so that it gains in popularity, but at $70 for OO.o it seems more like a play for money than anything else.

Master Shake
February 27th, 2006, 04:39 PM
Having had time to think about this, I think that the packaging and selling these things in the stores is a good idea.

First off, Joe Average, who may be a newbie to the world of computers, may not know these items exist because he has yet to get online.

Secondly, one reason that some people don't even consider OOo or FF is because it's free. There's a negative stigma there. (Sometimes justified)

IMHO, if this helps get wider acceptance of OSS, then by all means, I say go for it.

However in this particular case I think it will fail (and may tarnish OSS) for two reasons:

1) CompareSoft? Good lord, that sounds like the 9.99 software you see at Staples!

2) The packaging is horrible! Come ON!

Zeroangel
February 27th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Yeah, that's true. That guy should hire a professional firm to make the designs, he would recoup his investments bigtime since package art has a lot to do with how attractive a product seems on first glance.

skirkpatrick
February 27th, 2006, 04:52 PM
"OOFF" sounds like a kick to the groin. But I do have to agree that I see no problem with charging whatever the market will bear for the product. Do some of you guys realize that a lot of the physical things you buy at a store were not made by that store but still carries a hefty markup over what they paid? Let's face it, money makes the world go round. They alternative may sound all noble and everything but there's a reason bartering doesn't work anymore. Just think how messy Ebay's processing center would be if I traded 3 ducks for that rebuilt harddrive :)

Sirin
February 27th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Linspire is just doing this for the money. Go SuSe! :cool:

Stormy Eyes
February 27th, 2006, 04:55 PM
A normal human would understand it's not OK to ask money for someone else's work.

Let's see if I got this right: if I'm packaging somebody else's software (which was released under a Free license (GPL, BSD, Artistic, etc.)), printing manuals, and providing technical support I am not allowed to expect compensation for my efforts?


It's just the stupid materialistic world. People care only and only about money.

People like you really annoy me. Maybe I'm just too damn old.

Master Shake
February 27th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Do some of you guys realize that a lot of the physical things you buy at a store were not made by that store but still carries a hefty markup over what they paid?

Also, ever thought about "Store Brand" items? All store brands are is a re-packaging of someone elses product. That can of "Presdint's Choice" stewed tomatoes, are probably manufactured by Del Monte.

Stormy Eyes
February 27th, 2006, 04:59 PM
He's claiming that he can get these products on the shelves of big retailers so that it gains in popularity, but at $70 for OO.o it seems more like a play for money than anything else.

$70 for OO.o? By Lilith's heart-shaped ****, I can get StarOffice with a printed manual for that price.

DrFunkenstein
February 27th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Linspire is just doing this for the money. Go SuSe! :cool:
Huh?
Suse doesn't want to make money?
As I really like Suse, I sure would hope this isn't true...

KingBahamut
February 27th, 2006, 05:09 PM
I lost respect for Linspire (even more) when I saw this

What a deal!!! (http://www.oooff.com/openoffice.html)


Robertson and his Company Linspire are in the business to make money. Plain and simple. I find it hilarious that they would try to charge for open source softwares. What I wonder is this, is it ethical to charge money for something that is already free? What are you paying for, the ability to install it on your Linspire system? Cant you do that with relative ease now?

I cant say I hate the company, but what I can say is that I do find this kind of practice to be against what the community is driving at. Its sad, very sad really to see this kind of thing go on.

DrFunkenstein
February 27th, 2006, 05:18 PM
Robertson and his Company Linspire are in the business to make money. Plain and simple.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing.



I find it hilarious that they would try to charge for open source softwares.

Huh? Redhat, Suse, Mandriva, etc. all charge for open source software.



What I wonder is this, is it ethical to charge money for something that is already free?

Yes, it absolutely is. See above.



What are you paying for, the ability to install it on your Linspire system? Cant you do that with relative ease now?

No. You are paying for getting the software in a nice box, with a manual and maybe even support.



I cant say I hate the company, but what I can say is that I do find this kind of practice to be against what the community is driving at.

I think most open source coders who get paid for what they do by companies that sell open source software and support for it would tend to disagree with you here.



Its sad, very sad really to see this kind of thing go on.
Not really. Nothing to be sad about.
I think there's nothing wrong with Linspire selling this software. What I do have a problem with is that I have the feeling that they are misleading their customers about what they are selling, not with the selling itself.

KingBahamut
February 27th, 2006, 05:27 PM
honestly DFunk, charging for a packaged Distribution I feel is not an issue. I randomly will buy a copy of Redhat or Mandriva or Suse on an odd release, just to show my support for the community of linux as a whole.

Selling software on top of that becomes my issue. You buy Linspire, ok great, no problem. You buy linspire then you have to pay out for a CNR membership, to get more software. Are you going to pay X amount of dollars a year to get Gaim? To get Gimp? to get all these other software packages that for all intents should be free?

Of course I seem to remember something called FreeSpire that came out sometime ago (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9384033541.html), where the developer of SquiggleOS was stamped out and payed off by Linspire NOT to distribute a Free version of its OS. Now I dont see Redhat doing that, Nor Novell, Mandriva, or any other Distro that sells retail versions of its OS. Even Xandros, a member of the DCCA just as Linspire is, releases a free and supported version of its OS. So really, I see Linspire alienating itself from the community by trying to pull this sort of stuff.

DrFunkenstein
February 27th, 2006, 05:33 PM
honestly DFunk, charging for a packaged Distribution I feel is not an issue. I randomly will buy a copy of Redhat or Mandriva or Suse on an odd release, just to show my support for the community of linux as a whole.

Selling software on top of that becomes my issue. You buy Linspire, ok great, no problem. You buy linspire then you have to pay out for a CNR membership, to get more software. Are you going to pay X amount of dollars a year to get Gaim? To get Gimp? to get all these other software packages that for all intents should be free?

Honestly, I don't see the differnce.
So if you charge for the whole bundle it's fine, however, if you charge for the individual software or rather for an uncomplicated way to install the software (because that's what you pay for with CNR if I understand it correctly), it's wrong?



Of course I seem to remember something called FreeSpire that came out sometime ago (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9384033541.html), where the developer of SquiggleOS was stamped out and payed off by Linspire NOT to distribute a Free version of its OS.

But then again, that's an entirely different matter.
And Redhat did in fact tell people to make damn sure that they didn't infringe on their trademarks too.



Now I dont see Redhat doing that, Nor Novell, Mandriva, or any other Distro that sells retail versions of its OS. Even Xandros, a member of the DCCA just as Linspire is, releases a free and supported version of its OS. So really, I see Linspire alienating itself from the community by trying to pull this sort of stuff.
Again, it's a totally different matter. I think if we want to discuss Linspire in general, we should probably start a thread like "Why I hate/love/dontmind Linspire". ;)
And of course, Novel does not release a free version of it's Novel desktop (at least not with a way to get updates) and Redhat also does not release a free version of their commercial products afaik.

Installer36
February 27th, 2006, 05:33 PM
I installed Linspire when they had the free code and payed the 19.95 for the store because a friend told me it would be good for me to get use to Linux and to ween me off Windowz. I dont feel like I got ripped off . I have tried many different Distros and I believe Ubuntu is the best for me. Not because it is free but because of the support I receive here. In the long run it comes down to what is best for each person. As for charging for something that is free if there is a market for it they will be successful if not they will stop and try some other plan. Linspire is in business to make money not help teach Linux. What is the difference between this and selling puters prelaoded with some linux ISO? The price of that os is in the price you pay for that box even if you put a free distro on the computer. Well thats just my thoughts on this....Installer36

KingBahamut
February 27th, 2006, 05:43 PM
Honestly I think the discussion was, why is Linspire charging money for Free Libre software, and whether or not that something considered ethical.

I dont consider it ethical.

Free Libre means Free Libre. Free Libre does not mean, Free Libre to me a developer , only to turn around and charge some unaware user so that I can get more money from an unsuspecting consumer that has no idea what Free Libre software is.

If you buy a copy of Redhat or Mandriva or Suse, your buying documentation, support, and minor change updates to security and software (within the kernel its built on) . Thats Fine, I admire those companies for doing that.

While I have to admire Linspire's attempts at Monetizing their own build of Linux, and capitalizing on it, I take stake with them doing it on the backs of what is freely available software. Call me a Stallman clone if you want.

ELD
February 27th, 2006, 05:57 PM
I fail to see how this is a bad thing.


Huh? Redhat, Suse, Mandriva, etc. all charge for open source software.


Yes, it absolutely is. See above.


No. You are paying for getting the software in a nice box, with a manual and maybe even support.


I think most open source coders who get paid for what they do by companies that sell open source software and support for it would tend to disagree with you here.


Not really. Nothing to be sad about.
I think there's nothing wrong with Linspire selling this software. What I do have a problem with is that I have the feeling that they are misleading their customers about what they are selling, not with the selling itself.

I haave to agree with you.

DrFunkenstein
February 27th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

That of course doesn't mean that everything Linspire does is great, but Linspire selling software sure shouldn't be considered a problem.


If you buy a copy of Redhat or Mandriva or Suse, your buying documentation, support, and minor change updates to security and software (within the kernel its built on) . Thats Fine, I admire those companies for doing that.
I don't really see what the differnence to what Linspire is doing with their distro is here.

And the offerings we were discussing here were not for Linspire, but boxed software for windows users.

ELD
February 27th, 2006, 06:00 PM
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

That of course doesn't mean that everything Linspire does is great, but Linspire selling software sure shouldn't be considered a problem.


I don't really see what the differnence to what Linspire is doing with their distro is here.

And the offerings we were discussing here were not for Linspire, but boxed software for windows users.

I think it is an ok option really, if people want to pay for a cd version and not spend downloading time then go them. Think of 56k users trying to download open office...no thanks!

PatrickMay16
February 27th, 2006, 06:03 PM
Huh? Redhat, Suse, Mandriva, etc. all charge for open source software.
But isn't this different? They're all selling open source software that they worked on themselves.
Here it seems like Linspire has just taken some popular open source projects, stuck them in a box, and put stupid prices on them. Yeah, maybe you'll get some small manuals, but nothing you couldn't learn yourself by looking at the Help menu.

DrFunkenstein
February 27th, 2006, 06:09 PM
But isn't this different? They're all selling open source software that they worked on themselves.

Seeing how much software is included in a modern linux distro, I doubt they contributed to more than 5% of what they are selling. And don't forget that Linspire is also giving back to the community. Probably not as much as Redhat and Co., but then again, I think Linspire is considerably smaller.



Here it seems like Linspire has just taken some popular open source project, stuck them in a box, and put stupid prices on them. Yeah, maybe you'll get some small manuals, but nothing you couldn't learn yourself by looking at the Help menu.
As I already said, I think selling this software is in and off itself no problem and isn't really any different from what commercial distros normally do. And as ELD mentioned, getting your software in a box is certainly a good way for people without broadband, so I can certainly see a very legitimate demand for this kind of this.
What I do have a problem with though, as I already mentioned, is that from looking at the site I get the feeling they are misleading their customers about what exactly they are selling and I think that is what people should and could be critical about.

Hobz
February 27th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Of course I seem to remember something called FreeSpire that came out sometime ago (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9384033541.html), where the developer of SquiggleOS was stamped out and payed off by Linspire NOT to distribute a Free version of its OS.

Thats slightly incorrect. Jasp -who developed Freespire/SquiggleOS was NOT paid off by Linspire. He voluntarily withdrew the iso after being contacted by Linspire.

However, and this is the important part imo, He also agreed to post a link on his site advertising Linspires "free" download coupon which they ran, imo to cash in on the publicity that Jasp had generated with freespire. I believe Jasp done this out of goodwill. Also please bear in mind that Jasp ran up a huge bill from his ISP fo rthe bandwidth that had been used when there was a mad rush of people to download the iso - he was out of pocket for, as I recall hundreds of ££'s.

Linspire proceeded to see its membership grow exponentially on the back of Jasps work, Jasp however did not, and as far as I am aware, still hasnt received any "reward" from Linspire for the business they grabbed courtesy of him.

I count myself as a friend of Jasp and want to clear the record here, he wasnt paid off, but I'd be surprised if Linspire hasnt made a few bucks out of his work.

Extract from Wikipedia, listed under Linspire;-

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freespire )


In August 2005, a distribution LiveCD called "Freespire" hit the web by accident. Freespire was a GNU/Linux distribution based on the source pools from Linspire. This distribution was created by Andrew Betts ( http://www.jaspuk.co.uk/ ) and was not produced or released by Linspire Inc. Freespire was confused by some users to be an actual product from Linspire, and its creator voluntarily changed the name to avoid the confusion. As of the name change, the former Freespire adopted a development codename "Squiggle" ( http://www.squiggleos.org/ ( http://www.squiggleos.org/nodrmpleaselinspire.php )), and began contemplation of a new distro name. Linspire then, on the back of the generated publicity, offered users a "free Linspire" (purchase price discounted to $0) by using the coupon code "Freespire" until September 9th 2005, thereby greatly increasing its userbase. Squiggle OS however, is no longer in development.

You can also read a discussion on this topic here:- http://linspirenetwork.com/cgi/viewtopic.php?t=93


(and if anyone has any doubt about Linspires motives to self-promote and thus make more cash, take a look here at the Linspire CEO, and the resultant post by the Poll Admin - http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=419591 )

At least Ubuntu seem to have "seen through" Linspires facade, Thank god theres still some companies with ethics! :D

Bandit
February 27th, 2006, 08:56 PM
If you think that's outrageous you should take a look at this site:
http://www.comparesoft.com/products.html

This guy is trying to sell each product seperately, and for a high price. That's OO.o, GIMPshop, and Firefox that they're selling right there. He's claiming that he can get these products on the shelves of big retailers so that it gains in popularity, but at $70 for OO.o it seems more like a play for money than anything else.
OMG!!!
I could understand 19.95 if they threw in a book!! But this is an outrage!!
I dont see anything to stop them on the prices. BUT to call GIMP Compare**** could possible be a copyright infrindgement situation unless they totally note in the software that it is really GIMP and the people who it came from. If they dont and they call the code there own then it is defently breaking copyright laws...

Cheers,
Joey

KingBahamut
February 27th, 2006, 09:09 PM
Seeing how much software is included in a modern linux distro, I doubt they contributed to more than 5% of what they are selling. And don't forget that Linspire is also giving back to the community. Probably not as much as Redhat and Co., but then again, I think Linspire is considerably smaller.


As I already said, I think selling this software is in and off itself no problem and isn't really any different from what commercial distros normally do. And as ELD mentioned, getting your software in a box is certainly a good way for people without broadband, so I can certainly see a very legitimate demand for this kind of this.
What I do have a problem with though, as I already mentioned, is that from looking at the site I get the feeling they are misleading their customers about what exactly they are selling and I think that is what people should and could be critical about.

I have yet to see what Linspire has given to the community that many other distros have given on a larger level. Ubuntu installs are used in education centres world wide, those centres of education didnt have to pay out a liscense fee to a company like Linspire to get their wares. I dont call charging money to charitable causes something to be considered "giving back to the community". Your welcome to call it that if you like.

Misleading their customer base? More than likely, yes. Very much so. That is the practice that I become suspect of.

DrFunkenstein
February 27th, 2006, 10:00 PM
I have yet to see what Linspire has given to the community that many other distros have given on a larger level. Ubuntu installs are used in education centres world wide, those centres of education didnt have to pay out a liscense fee to a company like Linspire to get their wares. I dont call charging money to charitable causes something to be considered "giving back to the community". Your welcome to call it that if you like.

I was talking about things like financing KDE developer conferenes, or paying for the development of NVU, or sponsering kde-apps, kde-look and gnome-look for example.
And I think I even recall Linspire giving their distro to schools for free, while we are at it.

TeeAhr1
February 27th, 2006, 10:26 PM
Robertson and his Company Linspire are in the business to make money.
Hey, me too.


What I wonder is this, is it ethical to charge money for something that is already free?
I don't think it's moral at all, I think it smacks of opportunism, and profiteeting off others' ignorance, which is what I got into free software to fight against. But that's Linspire for you, they take the "free" out of free software, that seems to be their business model. However, is it legal? Unequivically, yes it is. Think it sucks? Me too. Educate.

BWF89
February 27th, 2006, 10:32 PM
I don't see 1 thing wrong with what Linspire is doing.

Open source means that you can give your product away for free or charge a fee. Their just useing the licence in the way it was intended.

And frankly, if your too stupid to do a Google search for Firefox or OpenOffice and find out that you can download it for free you deserve to be taken advantage of.

Bandit
February 27th, 2006, 10:36 PM
I was talking about things like financing KDE developer conferenes, or paying for the development of NVU, or sponsering kde-apps, kde-look and gnome-look for example.
And I think I even recall Linspire giving their distro to schools for free, while we are at it.
I agree they do give back, to what extent I am not fully sure.
But those are some really high prices listed for something they did not make.
I totally would understand $19.95, I would even understand $29.95 if they had a installer to make things easier for newbs. I would go as far to understand $39.95 if they through in a begginers instruction guide.
But that is the limit to my understanding.. Anything more IMHO is just wrong..

Cheers,
Joey

BWF89
February 27th, 2006, 10:40 PM
I totally would understand $19.95, I would even understand $29.95 if they had a installer to make things easier for newbs. I would go as far to understand $39.95 if they through in a begginers instruction guide.
But that is the limit to my understanding.. Anything more IMHO is just wrong..
Even if they charged a million dollars for the products it's still not wrong.

A good portion of computer users are idiots who are going to eventually be taken advantage of by a software company selling products with free replacements for high prices.

Would you rather that company be Microsoft selling them the proprietary closed standard Microsoft Office for a few hundred dollars or the open source, open standard OpenOffie suite for only $39.95.

Besides, alot of people think that the software you can download free off of the internet is poorly written and they might be weary about downloading a free program. With this they can purchase their software like their used to.

KingBahamut
February 27th, 2006, 10:55 PM
And I think I even recall Linspire giving their distro to schools for free, while we are at it.

To Quote Kevin Carmony

"Through the program (http://www.linspire.com/education_page.php) , educators will be able to sign up for single copies or per-unit volume license packs of Linspire at special educator rates, starting at $15 per license."

Funkenstein, I think your sorely misinformed if you think that Linspire is giving away free copies of Linspire to the education system.

Likewise , Carmony's interaction with Shutty I find if anything laughable, (http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=23) "The Linspire Show" hehe, funny.

Bandit
February 27th, 2006, 11:00 PM
Even if they charged a million dollars for the products it's still not wrong.

A good portion of computer users are idiots who are going to eventually be taken advantage of by a software company selling products with free replacements for high prices.

Would you rather that company be Microsoft selling them the proprietary closed standard Microsoft Office for a few hundred dollars or the open source, open standard OpenOffie suite for only $39.95.

Besides, alot of people think that the software you can download free off of the internet is poorly written and they might be weary about downloading a free program. With this they can purchase their software like their used to.

Legal wise, you are correct. Its perfectly legit, but comming from a programers point of view. It just feels wrong. I would very upset if I wrote some software and used the GPL v2.0 for the software so many distros could distribute it but found out that someone is just selling fancy burned CDs for a outrages price.
Bubby, you know how much I dislike microsoft and their betacode products.
I understand your point of view totally, you are looking at this from a consumer point of view. I myself am looking at this from a developer point of view. The point is that Linspire did not give any donations to OpenOffice.org or GIMP. If they did and continued to donate. I would not have a problem. For example "NVU". Linespire donates heavily to NVU. If I was a developer for NVU and Linspire then sold NVU like they are doing. Then I would be fine and happy with that. But its the ones they DONT contribute to that burn my chaps..
Do you see where I am comming from on this??

Cheers,
Joey

gabbman
February 27th, 2006, 11:03 PM
I wonder how many of us back in the 90's strolling through the computer stores purchased (for whatever amount) software that on the box looked awsome, but once the floppy or 5.25" disc. was inserted, all we got was a menu full of links to shareware?? That worked in DOS or Win3.1 but not Win95.

Some of you were probably too young to remember, but stores like Kmart and WalMart, Radio Shack sold zillions of them.

Company names and operating systems change, but the game is the same.

At least in this case you get to install something that will work. For someone that doesn't know how to, they at least get some value for the money they spend.

BWF89
February 27th, 2006, 11:04 PM
The point is that Linspire did not give any donations to OpenOffice.org or GIMP. If they did and continued to donate. I would not have a problem.
By selling OpenOffice and Firefox for a fee than in a way they are donating to them.

The people that might not feel comfortable downloading software for free might buy OOoFx, then their friends might start useing it, and some of their friends might see that you can get it for free elsewhere and their friends might start useing it.

Somewhere in this "friend of a friend told me about this" chain some of them might be programmers who havne't heard of OpenOffice and might start writing addons or write some code for it and send it to Sun to use on their products.

OpenOffice and Firefox then become better software and everyone benefits.

KingBahamut
February 27th, 2006, 11:09 PM
By selling OpenOffice and Firefox for a fee than in a way they are donating to them.

The people that might not feel comfortable downloading software for free might buy OOoFx, then their friends might start useing it, and some of their friends might see that you can get it for free elsewhere and their friends might start useing it.

Somewhere in this "friend of a friend told me about this" chain some of them might be programmers who havne't heard of OpenOffice and might start writing addons or write some code for it and send it to Sun to use on their products.

OpenOffice and Firefox then become better software and everyone benefits.

I think the Friend of a Friend Theory is moot. A developer, most importantly one that would have such contact would more than likely be aware of the existence of such software. Even most Windows/Microsoft based developers that I know of are aware that OpenOffice is a Free Product. I think its foolish to assume that would be otherwise.

How does firefox benefit in this manner? Does the money that Linspire makes from selling OpenOffice or Firefox make it back to their respect foundations? Probably not. It may increase userability , and the user base that uses it, that in case might then increase the level of awareness that users have of its existence, but to say that it benefits those projects in anyway outside of that is a little misplaced. And really, how big is Linspire's User base?

BWF89
February 27th, 2006, 11:30 PM
Legal wise, you are correct. Its perfectly legit, but comming from a programers point of view. It just feels wrong. I would very upset if I wrote some software and used the GPL v2.0 for the software so many distros could distribute it but found out that someone is just selling fancy burned CDs for a outrages price.
I'm not a programmer but if I wrote a really cool GPL 2.0 program and someone was selling it an outregious price I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. I'd just warn my friends & family not to buy it when they could download it for free.

GPL 2.0 gurantees that the software licenced under it can't be connected to any form of DRM so it's not like their taking my open source program and making it semi-proprietary. And since copying software is all the rage these days the people that did pay for it would probably copy it a couple of times for their friends and family. So you'd have to figure that the price of $39 for the software combo pack is getting spread out over a couple of people instead of 1 computer user.

BarfBag
February 27th, 2006, 11:40 PM
I've never had that much respect for Linspire. All it does is turn real geeks away from Linux (at least where I live).

These guys are almost as bad as Microsoft. :-#

Bandit
February 27th, 2006, 11:50 PM
I'm not a programmer but if I wrote a really cool GPL 2.0 program and someone was selling it an outregious price I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

I think after spending months on one project alone might persued you to re consider.
But thats my point of view, you are entitled to yours.
Cheers,
Joey

egon spengler
February 27th, 2006, 11:55 PM
I would very upset if I wrote some software and used the GPL v2.0 for the software so many distros could distribute it but found out that someone is just selling fancy burned CDs for a outrages price.

In that case all you have to do is not release it under the GPL. I'm sure there is some other license that prohibits selling of the software, write your own if need be

GreyFox503
February 28th, 2006, 12:04 AM
In that case all you have to do is not release it under the GPL. I'm sure there is some other license that prohibits selling of the software, write your own if need be

Bingo. egon, you beat me to it.

I've seen several posts that suggest changing the GPL, or about the software developers being dissapointed about their product being copied.

If they didn't want people to copy and/or sell their product, they wouldn't have released it under the GPL! They know this could/probably would happen. No surprises here.

If you guys think this is wrong, then DON'T release your programs under the GPL. Get another license.

Bandit
February 28th, 2006, 12:19 AM
Bingo. egon, you beat me to it.

I've seen several posts that suggest changing the GPL, or about the software developers being dissapointed about their product being copied.

If they didn't want people to copy and/or sell their product, they wouldn't have released it under the GPL! They know this could/probably would happen. No surprises here.

If you guys think this is wrong, then DON'T release your programs under the GPL. Get another license.
I agree with you. I can easily just right my own.
I totally understand the GPL ver2.0. There are good sides and bad sides to it.
Most users think of it as the holy grail of software license, when in fact it may not be what he or she actauly is looking for.
Which is why I do not write software and publish it under the GPL, but more of a modified version of it.
Cheers,
Joey

BWF89
February 28th, 2006, 12:27 AM
Which is why I do not write software and publish it under the GPL, but more of a modified version of it.
Cheers,
Joey
What software do you write and what do you release it under?

Bandit
February 28th, 2006, 12:31 AM
What software do you write and what do you release it under?
I am 27 now. I have been programming since I was 11.
I honestly havent written anything since I joined the military 5 years ago.
But I have wrote many things from 3D games to a custom web browser for a ISP I used to work for.
Cheers,
Joey

EDIT: I do write GNOME themes if you count that as programming, but those are under the GPL 2.0 becuz they are based on code from other themes that are already GPL 2.

BWF89
February 28th, 2006, 12:34 AM
I am 27 now. I have been programming since I was 11.
I honestly havent written anything since I joined the military 5 years ago.
But I have wrote many things from 3D games to a custom web browser for a ISP I used to work for.
Cheers,
Joey
The military thing struck a bell. Your Bandit from the SuSE Forums.

Bandit
February 28th, 2006, 12:36 AM
The military thing struck a bell. Your Bandit from the SuSE Forums.
In the flesh... :)

GreyFox503
February 28th, 2006, 12:43 AM
Bandit, I'm curious also. What license would you use or suggest to others if they wanted to protect their work in the way discussed in this thread?

bored2k
February 28th, 2006, 12:46 AM
Bandit, I'm curious also. What license would you use or suggest to others if they wanted to protect their work in the way discussed in this thread?
Take it outside please. We don't allow threads to drift-off in any way.

BWF89
February 28th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Take it outside please. We don't allow threads to drift-off in any way.
The thread is about the morality of selling software that can be downloaded for free. And the software licence is what gives or takes away the users right to do that. I wouldn't say that is causing the thread to "drift-off".

Bandit
February 28th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Bandit, I'm curious also. What license would you use or suggest to others if they wanted to protect their work in the way discussed in this thread?
Novell/SuSE has a good one for example with their retail version of SuSE. I remember reading it on a copy of SuSE 9.3. It was named copying or something (I am at work right now so I can look on the disc). But it went furthure then the GPL to add that the retail versions of SuSE (9.3 at the time) could not be sold for profit and so on. That license would have protected OO.o and GIMP from being sold like they are. You can simply modify it with an exception clause so it could be included in a distro bundle.
BWF89, you prob remember me and a few others arguing with a moderator on the suse forums about distributing suse until he gave up and left the forum.

Bored2k, sorry this still seems on topic to me.

Cheers,
Joey

Kevin Carmony
March 2nd, 2006, 01:43 AM
OOoFF was a VERY O L D product that was created specifically for RETAIL distribution. Not sure why this old page was still floating around. Thanks for pointing it out so we could take it down and that page now just redirects to OO.org

The history, for those who care...

Retails channels are not interested in carrying "free" software. Best Buy, COMPusa, Fry's, Micro Center, Wal-Mart, etc. are BUSINESSES and they stay in business by SELLING software. There is no reason at all for any of these businesses to promote or support open source software such as Firefox or OpenOffice. Some of these retailers WANTED to promote and distribute Firefox and OpenOffice.org, but it needed to: 1) come in a box, 2) have support included, and 3) have a list price so they could sell it and make money.

Linspire responded to this demand, thinking having these products available in retail stores was a GOOD thing for open source. We put this package together and many retailers carried it and it even sold well. However, Linspire also got pounded on by "the community" for trying to "sell" open source software. So, even though OOoFF did quite well, and millions of retail shoppers could be exposed to Firefox and OpenOffice.org, we dropped the product.

Score:
- Microsoft: 1
- Open Source Software on Retail Store Shelves: 0

Kevin Carmony
President & CEO, Linspire, Inc.

PatrickMay16
March 2nd, 2006, 01:47 AM
EDIT: Sorry, I had to remove this post. I hope you'll understand.

xequence
March 2nd, 2006, 01:51 AM
EDIT: The CEO dude posted a new thread about it, my reply is now ther o_O

Arktis
March 2nd, 2006, 04:03 AM
Thanks for the post. I just deleted Openoffice and Firefox from my Ubuntu. I can't believe Ubuntu has pirated software in it by default!

Linux is more expensive than Windows. Ubuntu duped me with free download, but then I had to buy a Linux licence from SCO for $699 and the legit copies of Firefox and Open Office for $29.95. I should have just bought Windows XP pro for $195 and MS Office for $399... I would have saved over $135.

***New from "Get the Facts"***
Microsoft Windows is 18.5% cheaper on the home desktop!!

Ahahahaha!!!!!!! :lol: =D> That post is a joke, right? You're joking... you can't possibly be that stupid.

mykill
March 2nd, 2006, 05:51 AM
Hey Ubuntu people - Michael Robertson here enjoying the spirited debate. I know Kevin, the Linspire CEO replied to this already, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

Let me address a few points I have heard:

1) OooFf is a dumb name
I'll personally take all the blame for this. That was my decision. I will say that while some may not like oooff I really don't see it any different than 'ubuntu' which looks like the tiles I get stuck with at the end of a game of scrabble. At the end of the day, I don't care what it's called as long as people realize they have a choice besides Microsoft and hopefully use it.

2) I hate Linspire - they just make money off of other people's hard work.

Linspire doesn't do OooFf or any of the other comparesoft products. These products are from a different company which I back with money from my own checking account. I encourage all of you to invest your time, money and resources to challenge Microsoft's monopoly. It's much too big for any one person or company.

3) I hate Comparesoft then, they are just taking other people's products and making money off it.

I have personally invested millions of my own personal money in countless Linux and open source products from mysql, wine, desktop Linux, linux conferences and more. So far, there have been no profits from any of those investments (many I have made investments in without any intention of a profit), but I'm in this for the long haul.

I'm a big believer in competition and Linux I think is the best hope to compete with Microsoft. Commercial efforts are required to support products so they will gain mass adoption. See redhat as a great example of this. They support linux on the server. They are definitely making money from Linux, but they add value in many ways - some of which have little to nothing to do with writing code.

Ask yourself why Linux and OO have single digit marketshare even though they are free and decent products. Surely something needs to change for them to get bigger marketshare.

The answer is that most people buy their software preinstalled and/or from stores. Then ask yourself how Linux can get preinstalled and in stores? You can't go to the store and say "give these CDs away". The store manager will not accept it. The answer is there has to be a profit motive for the retailer. And there has to be a profit motive for the distributor who supplies the retailer. Someone has to hire sales people and pay for manufacturing, documentation, and for support. Someone has to handle returns and provide training to in store staff.

Now you might say, "yeah, but why not sell the CDs for low cost like $10?" Of course people do this all over the net. (Yes, they are making money from Linux.) But offline is different than online. A $10 product in stores will not give enough profit for the retailers, distributors and manufacturers much less pay for all the required support.

Linux needs commercial companies to back it and commercial companies will back it only if they can make a profit otherwise they will spend the time elsewhere. Comparesoft is an effort to get people to compare - to think about their software choices. Most people think their ONLY choice is Microsoft. We need to be in front of consumers at shows, the net and yes retail stores telling them they have a choice! If they choose to download and install OOo for free or Ubuntu for free - great. One less customer for Microsoft. If they don't want to hassle with command line and want easy of use and pay Linspire - super. If they walk out of the store with CompareOffice instead of MicrosoftOffice - victory!

Here's something from my blog on the topic:

http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=195

Moving from Geekland to the Mainland with CompareSoft

November 17th, 2005

Return to Archive

Many of the readers of the Minute have probably heard of Linux, OpenOffice, GIMP and other open source programs. But I wanted to find out how commonplace those products were outside the Internet community. I decided to conduct a survey one lunch hour at a mall near the Linspire offices to investigate people's knowledge of their software options. I decided to ask questions about OpenOffice and GIMP, two of the more popular open source products competing with very expensive proprietary alternatives (Microsoft Office is $400 and Photoshop $500). First I wanted to investigate if regular people had ever heard of the open source alternatives, so I asked 10 people the questions below. (I have included the answers I received, plus the number of people who gave each response):

What are your options in computer software when looking for an office suite?
6 - Don't know
3 - Microsoft/XP Office
1 - Mac Office

What are your options for sophisticated photo editing software?
5 - Don't know
3 - Photoshop
1 - Photoshop/Microsoft Photo
1 - Shutterfly

I must point out that the people I surveyed were shopping at an affluent shopping mall right next to University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and some appeared to be students. Yet none mentioned open source products when asked about their software options. Next I wanted to measure if people really had heard of OpenOffice, but couldn't think of the name. So I asked a different 10 people:

Have you ever heard of Open Office? Where would you get it? How much would it cost?
10 - Never heard of it.

Have you ever heard of GIMP? Where would you get it? How much would it cost?
9- Never heard of it.
1- I think I have heard of it, not sure where I would buy it and have no clue how much it costs.

This survey was hardly scientific, but it confirms my belief that just putting software on the net and expecting people to find it, download it and install it is not a practical approach for competing with proprietary software companies.


The Compare Line
I decided to start a software company called CompareSoft, which would try to better market and sell open source alternatives for Macintosh and Microsoft Windows computers. The driver behind this idea was to take the "generic drug" approach to marketing - promote open source products as software with the "same active ingredients" as Windows or Mac, but at a much lower price. We spent the money to create beautiful packaging and build versions of several open source products with more mainstream titles and terminology... OpenOffice.org became CompareOffice, GIMP became ComparePhoto etc.

The packaging encourages shoppers to compare features, formats and price. The Compare line costs hundreds of dollars less than the better known competitors. It often reads and writes the most popular file formats and can be freely installed to multiple computers. We wanted to put "copy to as many computers as you like" as a specific feature, but software retailers refused to carry the product if that was on the box. If generic soda pop, generic drugs, and generic paper towels can garner 20-40% market share, generic software such as CompareSoft should be able to as well.

Some may criticize CompareSoft for charging for software that can be downloaded for free online, but this is necessary if open source is going to grow beyond 1% geek market share. If something is free, then there is no profit and therefore no incentive for retailers or distributors to merchandise the products. By charging a reasonable amount for CompareSoft products, we are able to build a profit motive for retailers and distributors so they are encouraged to stock open source solutions and not just expensive proprietary ones. We're also planning to re-invest a percentage of profits to encourage ongoing development and support of the products CompareSoft is re-branding and packaging.
CompareSoft President Jan Schwarz has done a terrific job in just a few short months building a company that can compete with software powerhouses not just at the code level but in the retail marketplace. By the first quarter of 2006, CompareSoft products will be in nearly 3,000 locations nationwide such as BestBuy and Circuit City. This will give retail outlets - where many people buy and learn about software - a low cost open source alternative for the first time. CompareSoft has also partnered with an international republisher, Questar, a long time follower of my initiatives. They are working to release and distribute the localized versions of these products throughout Europe, adding international sales and focused marketing exposure to those territories. This large distribution network will put pricing pressure on companies like Microsoft and Adobe to re-assess their oversized profit margins for software that they have long since captured their research and development costs. Making software more affordable will be a win for society.

-- Michael

Hobz
March 2nd, 2006, 01:59 PM
Micheal


Making software more affordable will be a win for society.

Agreed.

However, what concerns me is this:-

Compare Office + Compare photo + Compare Web = The Open CD (virtually), which is free, or can be ordered for approx $10 (£5).

Therefore....

$70+$80+$50= $200 versus $10

I realise that this is an oversimplistic example, Opencd does not come in a shiny box and unfortunately you cant buy it "off the shelf". So:

I wonder if, considering this is purely to promote OS software and all profits (after retailers profit etc) are being fed back into the community, will you say how much the mark up is on each box?

How much does each component part cost?

Is the profit being fed back into the respective projects?

If the profit is donated to the respective OS communities (openoffice, Gimp etc) then I will publicly retract my comments and apologise.

aysiu
March 2nd, 2006, 05:10 PM
If the profit is donated to the respective OS communities (openoffice, Gimp etc) then I will publicly retract my comments and apologise. Agreed. I believe this is where much of the criticism comes from. People are under the impression that cost-free products are being sold for exorbitant prices with the profit going who-knows-where.


This survey was hardly scientific, but it confirms my belief that just putting software on the net and expecting people to find it, download it and install it is not a practical approach for competing with proprietary software companies. People who demand scientific evidence of this are delusional. No one I know in real life (apart from the people in the tech department at work) have even heard of GIMP or OpenOffice. It's only recently that Firefox has made a big bang, and still there are people who haven't heard of Firefox either (yes, it's true).

easyease
May 11th, 2006, 11:50 PM
personally i dont think they are doing linux any favours at all because a windows users might pay for this distro,realise they have been ripped off, then assume LINUX
is nothing but a scam.