Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Microsoft Loses Appeal To Shut Down LindowsOS 380

Posted by michael from the stained-glass dept.
alphabet26 writes "LindowsOS announced yesterday that a Seattle Judge has denied Microsoft's appeal to shut them down, citing that Microsoft's own use of evidence helped determined "Windows" is a generic word. Lindows.com has posted the judge's seven page ruling on their website." Microsoft is trying get an injunction to prevent Lindows from using the name while the trial proceeds, and the judge has denied them, twice. Lindows could still lose the case in the end, though.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Loses Appeal To Shut Down LindowsOS More

Microsoft Loses Appeal To Shut Down LindowsOS

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe M$ should just retaliate. . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:23PM (#3538200) Homepage Journal
    And name an OS Winux. . .
    • In which case they would be required to change the name, after Linus, as the owner of a registered TM for Linux, decides to bring them to court.

      Winux will mean too much of a resemblance wit Linux, which, contrary to windows, is not a generic term.

      • I don't know, I suspect the linux trademark would be easy to break. Linux himself has intentionally done nothing to defend the trademark. (IIRC someone else registers Linux in their own name, and lawsuit was brought which proved the Linus is the rightful owner. Linux said thanks, but I'm not enforcing it because trademrk protection is not something that linux needs.

    • I can see the headlines...

      "Microsoft announces it's new operating system, 'WinLinux', which will combine the security and reliability of Linux with the ease of use and application base of Windows."

      Not likely, huh?

      The biggest threat against the Windows monopoly is not the presence of a technically superior operating system. The biggest threat to the Windows monopoly, is widespread awareness that an alternative *exists* at all.

      Microsoft is better off ignoring Linux than starting campaigns against it, which is largely what it has done. But they are losing anyway.

      Which is why they are trying to dominate and control other markets instead, like the handheld computer market (with their PocketPC), the game console market (with their XBox), or the market for platform-independent network-transparent applications (with their .NET framework).
    • Windows (win-doe's) n. : a 32 bit GUI shell written on top of a 16 bit operating system that was originally developed for an 8 bit personal computer with a 4 bit interrupt buss by a two bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

  • "Shut Down LindowsOS" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:24PM (#3538216)
    Microsoft isn't trying to shutdown the LindowsOS, as the article headline erroneously states. They're merely trying to stop them from using the Lindows name. The error seems to be a mistranscription of the Lindows press release, which refers to Microsoft attempting to "shut down Lindows.com" (presumably due to the name rather than the content). Even if Microsoft were to have won, there'd be nothing preventing the Lindows people from changing the name to JdsfhkjashdfkjOS.
    • I don't think they'll suceed as Lindows is sufficiently different from the word Windows - however much they're trying to cash in on Microsoft's trademark.

    • Re:"Shut Down LindowsOS" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by killmenow ( 184444 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:54PM (#3538502)
      I think Microsoft IS trying to shut down the Lindows OS (or perhaps I should say they are trying to KEEP it vaporware).

      Jobs mimicked Xerox. Gates mimicked Jobs. Robertson mimicked Gates. Only Gates knows how well mimicking works as a business model.

      I think Microsoft wants Lindows to never be done...or at least they never want Windows to be done until Lindows won't run(tm).

      The silly trademark thing was the only thing they could attack until there's an actual product.

      You can bet [if|once] a final, shipping product comes out of lindows.com Microsoft will sue for reasons other than just the Windows trademark.
      • Gates mimicked Jobs.

        There's a funny story about Apple with their project code named Sagan - when the Carl Sagan people complained and threatened legal action (over an internal code name, not a product) they changed the name to "Butt Headed Astronomer". Being a product name, of course, they wouldn't solve anything by calling it "Asshole Software Architect OS". Hmm, maybe ASAOS would work, with only rumors about what it means ;)

    • MS is in fact trying to stop Lindows. MS's lawyers aren't dumb so they've chosen to go forth with the lawsuit that's most likely to stick.

      Lindows is a small company and should they be struck (hard) by a MS lawsuit it would efficiently be the end of business for them.
    • Actually I would say this is an unfair attack. There are hundreds (thousands?) of pieces of software that start with the word 'Win' that MS has no problems with because they run on their software. They've already diluted their trademark if you ask me.

      It looks like an unfair challenge, but then I know what Linux is. Does the average consumer know? If Lindows wins (oh look a pun) it'll be because the lindows people will be able to demonstrate that 'lin' are the first few letters of linux and that the average consumer will not be fooled into buying the wrong software.

      Considering that MS's marketing machine is so huge, who would really buy a copy of Lindows and expect it to be windows? Not to mention who buys non-OEM copies of MS's OS unless they're pretty informed on where that $200 bucks is going.

      I'm expecting Lindows to win this one, possibly with stipulations that they can't use a lot of 'microsoft blue' or anything shaped like the windows logo on their packaging and ads.

      All things considered though, MS made a big mistake by not creating a new non-sense word that's easy to defend in trademark cases like the tradename Kleenex. Not to mention they're named Micro-soft. Not exactly unique there either. There's a MS training center called Microhard in Chicago. I wonder if they would be the victims of this kind of lawsuit if they only trained people in Novell?
  • Wow! From the reference to Page 28 of the court's finding:

    • Microsoft has raised serious questions about the validity of its trademark...

    Wouldn't that be FUNNY if Microsoft lost its "Windows" trademark name because it tries to bully a small company into obeying its will. Ha! This made my day...


  • Its time to give Microsoft some real competition, if Windows is deemed a generic word its ALL OVER for the microsoft monopoly.

    • An excellent point, perhaps people would be less hesitant to try Linux if it had a more familiar-sounding name.

      However, name recognition is one thing... having money, lawyers, thugs is something else entirely...

      I think it will take a little more than name recognition to get Linux mainstream, but it's certainly a good start.

      PS: Imagine all the "FreeBSD Is Dying" posts there would be if Linux distributions started this :)

    • Re:Its time for Redhat Windows, Mandrake Windows e (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:39PM (#3538369)
      "if Windows is deemed a generic word its ALL OVER for the microsoft monopoly."

      No, it isn't. Microsoft has the benefit of having strong public recognition of both their product name and their company name. Furthermore, it wouldn't kill their trademark on the distinctive Windows flag logo that many people have seen at boot-up for the past 7 years.

      I also think that retail stores would be less likely to carry a Linux-based operating system labelled "RedHat Windows". Why? Because anyone confused enough to buy "RedHat Windows" only because of the "Windows" in the name is going to return it the very next day when it fails to "work" (where "work" equates to running all his/her existing MS Windows-based programs; wine or other emulation packages aren't going to be enough to appease a novice end-user who was expecting actual MS Windows).

      Finally, I think breaking up a monopoly via trademark is inherently lame. The whole point of trademarks are to allow consumers to be able to differentiate the different products in a given market. I know I'd feel dirty if Linux had to start tricking people into using it.

      • Thats why everyone returned windows NT and XP right?
      • I also think that retail stores would be less likely to carry a Linux-based operating system labelled "RedHat Windows". Why? Because anyone confused enough to buy "RedHat Windows" only because of the "Windows" in the name is going to return it the very next day when it fails to "work" (where "work" equates to running all his/her existing MS Windows-based programs; wine or other emulation packages aren't going to be enough to appease a novice end-user who was expecting actual MS Windows).

        On top of that, a lot of stores have policies against returns on open boxed software.

        I'd rather not have people thinking of linux as "the OS that screwed them over"
      • Negative on that. They've got other non-generic trademarks such as Office, Word, Access, etc. How many times do you hear people in your office say a word like that when they access the system?
        • This is true. I'm betting you could get away with something like Word. Technically I'm sure the trademark is on Microsoft Word (anyone volunteer to look it up?). RedHat could make RedHat Word with no trademark infringement. Or at least I'd hope so, but I could be wrong, TSR was allowed to trademark the word nazi which seems bogus to me.
      • I know I'd feel dirty if Linux had to start tricking people into using it.

        Me: "Here you go. That'll be $1,500."

        Customer: "Wow. That's a lot of money, but at least I now have the fastest computer on the block! Thanks for putting it together for me. Now you did put Microsoft Windows XP on it like I asked, right?

        Me: "Uh, yeah. Just click on that little penguin in the lower left-hand corner to start using it. Gotta run."
    • Redhat Windows, Mandrake Windows etc

      This is, I have to say, a brilliant idea. I don't think it guarantees that the Microsoft monopoly is over, as you say, but it would be a very clever marketing move.

      I think many people in the Linux world underestimate how important marketing is. Very simple things really, like the language you use, really do make a difference.

      You may like to think that marketing doesn't influence you. And perhaps it doesn't. But it influences a hell of a lot of people - that's why companies like Microsoft pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop product names like "XP".

      Apple. think different. Repeat. Repeat again. Repeat a hundred times. Eventually people make the association between Apple and creativity.

      The reason "Redhat Windows" (or SUSE Windows or whatever) would be a brilliant move would be because it would immediately make an association in Joe Publics mind. The billions that Microsoft has spent making people associate Windows with terms such as reliablity, quality, etc., would be transferred to Redhat, for free.

      Now, I can here some of you thinking "bullshit, people aren't so stupid", but you've got to remember that we are not Joe Public. Joe Public doesn't understand what we understand, and to you and me, that makes them appear stupid:

      Joe: I want to buy a computer.

      Sales dude: Oh, this one's nice. It's a Linux machine.

      Joe: Oh, no, I want a Windows computer.

      Sales dude: Well, how about this one. It's got RedHat Windows on it.

      Joe: Oh, is that like Microsoft Windows?

      Sales dude: Yes, it's very similar. And it's cheaper.

      Joe: Great! I'll take that one.

      • Joe Sixpack was willing to buy Windows2k, WindowsXP etc, I mean even though his programs broke, it was the Windows name that sold those OS's.

        The Games may not work as well, But Microsoft marketed it as a new upgrade,

        Linux people should market linux as an UPGRADE.

        Tell them go ahead and use Windows, but when you are tired of crashing, dealing with viruses, and want freedom to burn cds and have freedom in software choices.

        Graduate to Linux.
        • By the way we need TV comercials to market Linux like this. Nothing short of tv comercials will work. We need to market Linux to the younger college/highschool crowd not the adults.

          Put Linux Commercials on MTV. Make it seem like a huge movement, perhaps complete with protests and people throwinng their windows computers in the trash.

          You know, something like what was done for those anti tabacco commercials.
  • Microsoft is not just suing lindows. They are also suing Andersen and Pella over use of the term "windows." http://www.uncoveror.com/microsoft_to_sue.htm Check it out.
  • From the bottom of the page:
    Lindows.com is not endorsed by or affiliated with Microsoft Corporation in any way.

    IANAL (*cough*) but if I were, I would read this as an admission that there is a potential for confusion in the mind of the consumer requiring clarification by the disclaimer.

    Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot with that?
    • I think they need that becaise they claim that LindowsOS runs MS programs, not because they are themselves "like unto MicroSoft." IANALE (I am not a laywer either), but I think that while MS could claim that as an admission, there are plenty of counter-arguments.

  • I Never liked "Lindows" as a name (Score:5, Funny)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:31PM (#3538291)
    It always sounded like some cheap Chinese knock-off to me. I think you want to sound like your quality is better than Windows...

    Homer:[gasps] Look at these low, low prices on famous brand-name electronics!
    Bart: Don't be a sap, Dad. These are just crappy knock-offs.
    Homer: Pfft. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see it. And look, there's Magnetbox and Sorny.

  • What beautiful music.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rhadamanthus ( 200665 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:32PM (#3538302)
    I think the truly important part of this article has nothing to do with M$ (readies flame-retardant suit...).

    The truly important bit is regarding "trademarking of common phrases". I think it absolutely ridiculous that companies can trademark any common word or phrase. Reference a similar suit to this one, Mastercard suing Nader over "priceless" [essential.org] to see this kind of silliness in action. (feel free to find a better article, I just pulled the first item off google)


    Basically, I do not condone the use of language "exclusivism". Language, as a whole, does not lend itself well to patentability. Satire, documentaries etc. are protected speech regardless of trademark, although occasionally (as usual) the courts can get confused. In this case it is even more bizarre. Suing over a name sounding the same? Poets beware!


    -------------rhad
    • What's ridiculous is the misuse of trademark law. Suing over a name sounding the same might make perfect sense, for example if somone started selling "Zerox" photocopiers. Suing Nader over "priceless" is silly, as you say.

      Like any other algorithm, laws don't work very well outside the area they're designed for.

      What I wonder about are the implications for "Word", "Chart", and all the other common words Microsoft has chosen to use as trade names.

      • It wasn't just the use of the word "priceless" -- the entire Nader ad in question was clearly a derived work that mimicked the world-recognized Mastercard ad campaign. That fact was never in dispute.

        The issue of contention was, basically, whether it fell under parody protection as a sarcastic use of the theme.
    • The thing is, 'windows' may be a generic term, but Lindows are not trying to make an operating system that just happens to have a windowing GUI. They are trying to make a substitute for Microsoft Windows. I am sure they will market it on this basis too.

      However, in any sane trademark system you'd credit the consumer with a minimal amount of intelligence and assume that Lindows can be distinguished from Windows, as Radiation Dude from Radioactive Man. Who knows, perhaps this will even be the outcome.

  • choosing a name (Score:2, Interesting)

    by salmo ( 224137 )
    I don't know why the company would pick a name like Lindows, though. Thats like those movies that are hyped up as "If you liked X you're gonna love Y." Or "The best ___ since X." Everyone I know who reads something like that immediately moves on. Rather than selling themselves as a cheap immitation product they should try and sell themselves as a better alternative that happens to also be much cheaper.

    This seems especially silly when they have to fight legal battles for the right to use a bad name. Even if they win it's going to cost them a fortune.

    I'd just move on and make a big anti-Microsoft PR stunt out of Microsoft trying to pressure my compnay legally. You'd be getting articles in all the ZDnet type news sites, where it seems Lindows target audience hangs out. They'd talk first about the big MS v. Lindows and Linux in general thing plus they'd mention your new snazzy name. Then the reviews start rolling in when the reporters have nothing to talk about because they get a review and a chance to drag up old MS v. Linux garbage. I guess they get all this now, but I think the costs would be a lot less the other way.

    Plus, you have to admit the only reason they are using the name is to trick people into using their product. The name basicly says "Like Windows? Try Lindows." Without MS, they'd have no reason to name their product that.
    • "Without MS, they'd have no reason to name their product that."

      Without MS, this product wouldn't exist in the first place, so what's your point?
    • I'd have to say that this Lindows thing is just too stupid to be true. It's a dumb name and no company would invest the time and money involved here just to be able to market a Linux distro.

      Sun and/or IBM are privately bankrolling this to contest the legality of the trademark Windows. They don't want their companies to seem petty or look bad if they lose, but they also want to put a slight hurt on Microsoft. They form this shell of a company, stick up some bad screenshots, draw out Microsoft for a court case, win it, and quietly let Lindows die after meeting their goals.

      .

  • The Ruling (Score:2, Informative)

    by Joe Jordan ( 453607 )
    I found the most interesting part of the Judge's ruling to be the following:

    Microsoft maintains that "Windows" cannot be generic because it is not the name for a class of products. Microsoft's reasoning is flawed because it ignores the Seventh Circuit's case law holding that when a composite term is generic and is made up of an adjective that classifies a noun, the adjective itself can also be a generic form. Microsoft's argument also ignores its own analysis of the Defendant's evidence, which shows repeated references to the composite terms "windows manager", "windowing environment", "windows programs" and several others. Microsoft's outline of the evidence in the Declaration of Timothy L. Boller even characterizes each of these composite terms as the genus for a type of product.

    Apparently Microsoft used the very same terms to describe Lindows that they were trying to defend as unique. How's that for shooting yourself in the foot. :)
    • The second paragraph really deserves to be included:
      Through it's own use of the evidence, Microsoft essentially admits that these terms refer to the genus of computer software products that have windowing capability. Just as with "light beer", and "matchbox toys", it logically follows that the use of "windows", "window" and "windowing" is also generic when used to refer to the same class of products.
      I think that they pretty much shot themselves in the foot on this one...

      Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!

  • Does it seems to anyone else that MS should try to spend less time in the courts and more in QA and product development?

    Sorry, had to say it. ;)

  • strange relationship between Windows and Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gizzmonic ( 412910 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:39PM (#3538375) Homepage Journal
    The more I read about "Lindows" and other wannabe Windows retrofittings for Linux, the more I wonder about the psychological health of the (wannabe Windows) Linux community.

    Think about it this way: it's like the people who bashed the hell out of Star Wars Episode I, but still showed up at midnight in full Jedi drag for Attack of the Clones. There's constant whining and putting-down of Microsoft, yet everything that goes into KDE and Lindows tries to make Linux more Windows-like.

    Why must Linux define itself through Windows? It's good enough to stand on its own, last I heard...

    • That because there is nothing wrong with Windows. The software does what it does good. i.e, plays games, runs productivity software and is generally easy to use.

      The problem is Microsoft and their pricing scheme, EULAs and general nastiness. If the software portion of their business was run like their hardware portion (keyboards, mice joysticks), they would be much better company.

    • The more I read about "Lindows" and other wannabe Windows retrofittings for Linux, the more I wonder about the psychological health of the (wannabe Windows) Linux community.

      Why must Linux define itself through Windows? It's good enough to stand on its own, last I heard...

      That's a rediculous idea! Windows has an awful lot of features that I and many other people deem usefull. I don't want to have an arguement on 'timelines' here, but just because Windows has a GUI interface should we abandon it? The same with the CLI.. should that go too? Just because its similar to Windows?

      Or should Linux 'embrace and extend', 'borrowing' things from Windows and making them better (it's imperitive that it should be better, as if it's the same or worse, we should just use Windows in the first place..)!

      I personally hate having to switch between Windows and Linux, I only ever hit Windows because despite what everyone seems to thing, DVD playing with Linux is completly shit, plus games run faster :/

      Tagging the word Windows on the end of RedHat is just plain stupid though imho, it's like those low budget 'rip-off' items of merchandise etc that are similar to the original but just cant cut it.. and we know Linux is better than that!

    • People are trying to make Linux more "Windows-like" with increasing amounts of window dressing (pun intended) simply because they realize the reality of the world: 95% of the users on this little globe use Windows in some variation or another. They don't care that it's slow (I.T.'s problem), they don't care that it's big (ditto), or expensive (the company paid for it), or proprietary (gee, what's that mean?). They just know that it works well enough for them, and they're used to it. NEVER underestimate the power of familiarity.

      Also don't underestimate Microsoft. Regardless of their many faults, they have as of late started spending lots of cash on usability enhancements and studies to see how people like things to be. When I say "people", I don't mean geekheads who tweak kernels and make their own Cat5 cables, I mean the AVERAGE user out there who never, ever wonders where the command line prompt is. Believe it or not, dumbass technophobes outnumber tech-heads by about 50-to-1 if the average company I.T. to user ratio is to be considered. These people can't even program their VCR, what makes you think they can appreciate Linux's CLI?

      KDE, Gnome, and all the rest are chasing Microsoft because (deep breath here, folks)...Microsoft is where all the other folks WANT to be! They don't want to be buggy, huge, and expensive, but they do want to take advantage of the huge Windows penetration into the average Joe's computing experience. Linux folk consistently underestimate this factor, and then are puzzled why Linux is not gaining widespread acceptance on the desktop.

      Cardinal rule: a product does NOT have to be the BEST at anything, it just has to be GOOD ENOUGH, and CONVENIENT ENOUGH, to get the job done MOST OF THE TIME. OS/2, Novell, Macintosh, UltraSPARC...I could name a thousand technologies that are (or were) the best in their respective classes but failed to achieve market dominance. Intel's processors are not the fastest, they do not have the most elegant design, and they sure as hell aren't the cheapest, but they rule the PC world completely while Alpha and PowerPC occupy niches. Macintosh arguably has one of the better GUI's out there, yet they languish with only about 4% of the market. OS/2 was 32-bits long before WindowsNT was even a glimmer in the eye, but does anybody really run Warp anymore?

      Being the BEST at one thing frequently means you've neglected something else somewhere. Linux is a technological marvel in its configurability and flexibility, but has neglected usability with respect to contemporary products from Microsoft and Apple. Don't try to deny it, it's true. When your grandmother can successfully get a PC and load RedHat on it unassisted, and then actually troubleshoot it if something goes wrong (can she understand cronjobs? fsck?), THEN Linux will have risen to the top. Unfortunately, I have a funny feeling that in order to become that user friendly, Linux will have to become bigger, slower, more expensive, and more proprietary. Perhaps it isn't true, but I'd be willing to bet that it is.
      • When your grandmother can successfully get a PC and load RedHat on it unassisted, and then actually troubleshoot it if something goes wrong (can she understand cronjobs? fsck?), THEN Linux will have risen to the top.

        BS.

        Most users wouldn't have a clue how to install Windows, let alone use Scheduled Tasks, or scandisk/defrag.

        Your post was good up to that point.

        S
        • And from the support front, I'd say that *nix's are much easier to understand than Windows. Cronjob's easy, I could explain to my mother how they work in less than five minutes. Trying to explain NT's at, no thanks. The pretty little pictures that get put on the screen for users just get in the way of efficient administration (for the most part).
      • KDE, Gnome, and all the rest are chasing Microsoft because (deep breath here, folks)...Microsoft is where all the other folks WANT to be! They don't want to be buggy, huge, and expensive, but they do want to take advantage of the huge Windows penetration into the average Joe's computing experience. Linux folk consistently underestimate this factor, and then are puzzled why Linux is not gaining widespread acceptance on the desktop.

        Ah, no, I don't agree with this bit. You're saying the reason desktop Linux hasn't taken off yet is because people think Windows is good enough. I disagree - people in my opinion don't think Windows is good enough. In fact, I often here even fairly techno-phobic people bitching about it: they've heard a techie swear at Microsoft when Windows crashed and they think: ah, I just lost all my work, this is the fault of Windows. And often they are right.

        I'd say there are lots of good reasons why desktop Linux hasn't taken off yet. It's not because of any overarching problem with open source development, or any fundamental problem with Linux, it's just not there yet. People consistantly seem to underestimate how much work is required to make a truly easy to use computer, especially when the underlying OS was designed to be powerful first, simple second.

        For instance: software management, fonts, printing/hardware setup, I could go on and on. There are currently several problems that mean that Linux is just too much hard work to use on the desktop right now. I can do it, and don't mind putting in the extra work because I like the "Free" aspect to it. But most don't care. Combine this with small mindshare and the difficulty in getting preinstalls, and I think it's self evident why Linux hasn't got there yet. But it will.

        Cardinal rule: a product does NOT have to be the BEST at anything, it just has to be GOOD ENOUGH, and CONVENIENT ENOUGH, to get the job done MOST OF THE TIME. ........ Intel's processors are not the fastest, they do not have the most elegant design, and they sure as hell aren't the cheapest, but they rule the PC world completely while Alpha and PowerPC occupy niches. Macintosh arguably has one of the better GUI's out there, yet they languish with only about 4% of the market. OS/2 was 32-bits long before WindowsNT was even a glimmer in the eye, but does anybody really run Warp anymore?

        Intel - this was mainly the case because Intel were in the right place at the right time, and because they did the famous Wintel deal.

        Macintosh - yeah, for years they had the best GUIs, but let's face it, up until recently Macs sucked at everything else. OS 9 made Windows 98 look like a magical technological feat of engineering. There was a reason their market share dropped so rapidly.

        OS/2 - the reasons for the lack of dominance here are well documented, and they aren't to do with technology.

        My point is, none of these things are gone today because Windows did what they did better: there were almost other (usually business related) reasons involved.

        Being the BEST at one thing frequently means you've neglected something else somewhere. Linux is a technological marvel in its configurability and flexibility, but has neglected usability with respect to contemporary products from Microsoft and Apple. Don't try to deny it, it's true.

        It is true. However, that's because the Linux developers first concentrated on power, then flexibility, then features, and are just now turning their focus onto usability and looks. For instance, in the last 2 weeks the KDE Panel configuration dialog was patched to make it far more usable, with a cleaner, simpler design. Now Linux on the desktop has caught up with Windows in terms of raw features, it's busy taming them and making them easier to use. Meanwhile, MS and Apple worked on ease of use above all else, and are now focussing on power and features. Take for example the pushes they are making into the server arenas etc. Linux and the commerical OSes have just approached things from a different angle.

        When your grandmother can successfully get a PC and load RedHat on it unassisted, and then actually troubleshoot it if something goes wrong (can she understand cronjobs? fsck?)

        She doesn't have to? If anything right now Linux is more granny friendly than Windows (98) because they rarely set things up themselves, rather they just read email, write letters etc. With Linux once it's setup it's hard to screw up (you need root access). And more to the point, I don't need to know about fsck or cronjobs, they are dealt with automatically by SuSE. Linux still isn't user friendly enough for widespread adoption, but it's getting closer.

        Unfortunately, I have a funny feeling that in order to become that user friendly, Linux will have to become bigger, slower, more expensive, and more proprietary. Perhaps it isn't true, but I'd be willing to bet that it is.

        I'd bet against that. So far Linux has come on in leaps and bounds, and it's remained cheap, free and ... well okay I give it to you on speed grounds.

    • Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Hold there, cowboy. Don't confuse the "Linux community" with companies who are trying to make some $$$ from Linux. Big difference.

      Linux IS (in my mind) good enough to stand on its own. Have you READ any of the debates on here when versions of KDE &| Gnome are released? The Linux community is fickle and tends to hold developers very accountable.

      There's constant whining and putting-down of Microsoft, yet everything that goes into KDE and Lindows tries to make Linux more Windows-like.
      Whatever, I find the business practices of MS to be reprehensible. That's not whinning. If you want to be a sheep, by all means, but don't complain when others don't.

      KDE and Lindows are 2 efforts to make Linux more palatable to the average user. Lindows may be Windows-like, but I think KDE is quite different. Finally, let's not forget that Windows pulled most of its ideas from Mac and (early on) OS/2.

    • The problem is whether you like it or not, windows is a standard so in order to appeal to the great majority of windows users, a linux interface needs to be windows-like. Think about keyboards for a second, the DVORAK layout has be proven to be a more efficient keyboard layout but the problem is QWERTY became a standard before DVORAK was introduced. The introduction of new features or methods in a UI must be incremental or it will never become popular.
    • The more I read about "Lindows" and other wannabe Windows retrofittings for Linux, the more I wonder about the psychological health of the (wannabe Windows) Linux community.

      Nonsense. It is merely a migration tool, nothing more. Many large enterprises would like to migrate away from Windows, particularly with Microsoft's new, extortionate licensing scheme, but they can't do so overnight in a "cold turkey" fashion because they depend on too many custom or niche applications that do not run on GNU/Linux, or at least didn't until Wine, Codeweavers, Transgaming, and Lindows came along.

      Others want to migrate, but don't want to retrain their workers for a new OS. The Lindows folks saw an opportunity and jumped. I won't ever run their distribution, but many very well may, and they'll be getting something the other distros those of us more savvy prefer doesn't offer them ... seemless and (as) painless (as possible for any) migration from a legacy, monopoly OS to a more sustainable, open and free(dom) alternative.

      Someone saw an opportunity and decided to package up and market a GNU/Linux distribution to take advantage of that opportunity and make a few bucks. No deep or sinister freudian psychology involved, just simple, free market economics.
    • Uggh, don't forget those of us who sort of likes EP1, but thought Ep2 was a cheese fest. ;)
  • /If we have to go to trial where the word "windows" will be declared generic, we're prepared to do so."/

    Damn that would be sweet. The whole "Windows", "Word", "Office" thing has always pissed me off.

    • Why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:46PM (#3538432) Homepage
      The whole "Windows", "Word", "Office" thing has always pissed me off.

      http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

      TRADEMARKS. Active Channel, Active Desktop, Active Directory, ActiveStore, ActiveSync, ActiveX, Advisor FYI, Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Allegiance, Amped, Asheron's Call, Ask Maxwell, Authenticode, Azurik, BackOffice, BackOffice logo, bCentral, BizTalk, Bookshelf, CarPoint, ClearLead, Computing Central, Crimson Skies, Developer Studio, DirectDraw, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, DirectSound, DirectX, Encarta, Entourage, Fighter Ace, FrontPage, HomeAdvisor, Home Essentials, Hotmail, Links, Links Extreme, MapPoint, MechCommander, MechWarrior, Microsoft, Microsoft Agent logo, Microsoft Internet Explorer logo, Microsoft Office Compatible logo, Microsoft Press, Microsoft TV logo, Midtown Madness, Mobile Explorer, MoneyCentral, Monster Truck Madness, Motocross Madness, MSDN, MSN, MSN logo (butterfly), .Net logo, NetMeeting, Nightcaster, Outlook, Outsmart, Passport logo, Picture It!, PowerPoint, Precision Racing, Project Gotham Racing, Revenge of Arcade, Rise of Perathia, SharePoint, Slate, Tex Murphy, The Age of Kings, The Everyday Web, Trekker, UltimateTV, UltimateTV logo, UltraCorps, UnderWire, Urban Assault, VGA, Virtual Golf Association, Visio, Visual Basic, Visual C++, Visual C#, Visual InterDev, Visual J++, Visual Studio, WebTV, Where do you want to go today?, Windows, Windows logo, Windows Media, Windows Media logo, Windows NT, Xbox, XBOX logo, Xbox "X" logo, ZoneFriends, ZoneLAN, ZoneMatch, ZoneMessage, Zoo Tycoon, and/or other Microsoft products referenced herein are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners. The example companies, organizations, products, domain names, email addresses, logos, people and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, domain name, e-mail address, logo, person, or event is intended or should be inferred.
      • Page 24 of the March 25 ruling: While the court agrees that the Windows mark has acquired secondary meaning, no degree of secondary meaning will save a generic mark... no matter how much money or effort it pours into promoting the sale of the merchandise.
        ...otherwise a manufacturer could remove a common descriptive word from the public domain...
        So "windows", "word", and "office" can't be trademarks. ("Microsoft Windows" is a solid trademark because "Microsoft" is not at all generic.) My only question, if "Windows" by itself can't be a trademark, why didn't this end the case right there?

        Could there be allegations that, like "Bolex" watches, Lindows could be sold as a counterfeit MS Windows? I don't know if that would matter even if it was true, once "Windows" loses trademark status, but in any case it's not true and it's not a reasonable sales strategy for Lindows. A major part of their sales pitch is that it ISN'T MS Windows, but is (or will be, someday) better because Linux is underneath. Anyhow, they aren't selling this on street corners, and anyone who didn't understand what they were buying would soon bring it back - so accentuating the difference is in Lindows vendors' best interest.
  • Microsoft will be filing suit against Home Depot and Lowes for selling windows, as well as major home builders such as Choice homes and Pulte for including windows in buildings they sell to the public.

    :)

  • I originally hated the name "Lindows". I would have prefered a clean break from Windows. However, I'm starting to come around to the name from a marketing perspective. "Lindows" may serve as an enticing transition for Windows-addicts, sorta the methadone of the closed source.

  • Lindows is bad (Score:3, Informative)

    by lkaos ( 187507 ) <anthony@codemonke y . ws> on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:50PM (#3538471) Homepage Journal
    I'm sorry, but I cannot help it.

    For one, Lindows goes to great length to distant itself from Linux. In fact, most non-open source people do not even realize there is _any_ relationship between Lindows and Linux.

    Lindows *is* Linux. All it is a regular distro of Linux that has renamed everything and drops into single user mode. Others have mentioned how they renamed KWord and a lot of the other KDE stuff.

    Then they don't release their source code (clearly violating the GPL). Free Software is all about preserving credit for the original authors and Lindows seems almost to spit in the face of all the people who have worked on Linux.

    I don't care if Linux overtakes Windows. I don't care about Windows and the people who use it. I do care about people abusing the hard work that has gone into developing Linux though.

    I personally am disappointed that Lindows won here only because I would have liked to see them fade away. They are not good for the community and I can just imagine the harmful effect they will have when they eventually go belly up.

    • Re:Lindows is bad (Score:4, Informative)

      by lkaos ( 187507 ) <anthony@codemonke y . ws> on Friday May 17, 2002 @12:54PM (#3538504) Homepage Journal
      From their own site:
      Lindows.com is a consumer company that brings choice to computer users. Lindows.com, Inc. uses the latest technology to create affordable, intuitive, user-friendly products. Lindows.com, Inc. was started by Michael Robertson, founder and former CEO of MP3.com. At the core of Lindows.com is a new operating system called LindowsOS(TM), a modern, affordable, easy-to-use operating system with the ability to run both Windows® and Linux® software.
      WTF! The core of Lindows is LindowsOS??? No it's not! The core is the Linux kernel. Wine is not an operating system, it is an emulator. It's not like they wrote even a significant portion of any of their components (yeah, a little bit on Wine, but not much in comparision to the entire project).

      I'm sorry, I just don't see why more people don't despise Lindows... Is this not a big FU to the Free Software community?
      • Actually, if you dig a little deeper, here's a question posted on the support.lindows.com member forum...

        Q: Does LindowsOS use Windows drivers?
        A: LindowsOS is based on BSD linux [emphasis mine] and uses linux drivers for hardware and compatibility.

        Now of course, my first thought is, "What in the hell is BSD linux?" My second thought is, perhaps much of the kernel in LindowsOS is BSD, with a smattering of Linux compatibility improvements and some Wine poured in for Windows compatibility.

        If much of what they do is based on BSD, how much do they really have to give back to the community anyway?

        So now the question I want answered is this: When is someone who's signed up for the $99 fsck-you program to get the sneak preview gonna post it online? Or for that matter, if any of you have it, will you run strings on the binaries and post the results of that?

        Or would that be a violation of the NDA?
        • When they say "BSD" Linux, they are referring to *types* of Unixes. If you haven't heard, there are two main branches of Unix: BSD and System V. Not a lot of differences, but they are not speaking of the BSD you are thinking of (i.e. not FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) They are tlaking about a system type.


          This dates from 1992:

          >What is (are) the fundamental difference(s) between System V and BSD?


          The only true fundamental difference is that System V is a for-profit venture and must therefore sell whatever people want to buy, while BSD is a research vehicle and must therefore provide a base on which to write papers. The result is that System V has lots of features, costs a lot, and is comparable to many other commercial systems, while BSD has lots of *new* features, eventually drops old features that turn out to be useless, and does not cost much. Unfortunately, since BSD was originally based on AT&T's `32V' Unix, you need an AT&T source license to buy BSD (which is sold only in full-source form). --

          • Re:Lindows is bad (Score:3, Insightful)

            by killmenow ( 184444 )
            I am aware of the differences in SysV and BSD style *nixes. And Linux is very SysV-ish, if you know what I mean.

            Are you suggesting they have taken the linux kernel and put a BSD-style userspace, filespace, etc. to it?

            If so, what would be the point? I mean, why NOT just use FreeBSD? Starting with FreeBSD, hiring programmers to improve linux binary compatibility, and throwing in Wine would not require you release your changes to FreeBSD back to the community right? I mean, I thought that was the point of the BSD license?

            This is why I'd like someone who HAS a preview to run strings on the binaries. I'd like to know if they actually came from linux or [Free|Open|Net]BSD?
        • "Or for that matter, if any of you have it, will you run strings on the binaries and post the results of that?"

          Are you a copyright holder on any part of any software that might concievably be in Lindows? If so, mail me (novalis@gnu.org or license-violation@gnu.org) and I will send you what you need.
      • I guess it's a point of perspective. The ultimate core of any operating system is the kernel, in this case the Linux kernel. However, these days people look at the OS at a wider layer than just the kernel.

        For example, all the wars about IE being part of the "Windows OS", one may wish to argue that the core of Windows is actually the windows kernels; that's ntdll or user32/kernel32/shell32 and that everything else is built on top.

        If you regard the operating system as the layer(s) that allow applications, Windows or Linux based, to interface with memory, CPU and other hardware, then the end result appears that Lindows OS is indeed the core of the Lindows distribution. They've taken what were previously applications/emulators/applications (cf browsers/windows media player/explorer) and integrated it into the operating system to give a better (depending on your perspective) interface that is the operating system

    • Re:Lindows is bad (Score:3, Informative)

      by MsGeek ( 162936 )
      This is why I am rooting for Lycoris as the "Linux with Training Wheels" for recovering Windows users. Lycoris releases source. Lycoris is based on a standard distribution (Caldera OpenLinux) and openly acknowledges that it is a species of Linux.

      I am only waiting for Lycoris to tweak KDE 3 the way they did KDE 2.2.2.

      It actually is a Good Thing (tm) that the Lycoris Group changed their name from Redmond Linux. The whole Lindows thing is a distraction from the goal of creating a simplified Linux for the desktop.
    • Dude, it's all there for crying out loud! http://www.net2.com/lindows/source [net2.com]
  • Lh lood, L Lnti Licrosoft Ltory, L Las Letting Lnti Licrosoft Lithdrawl Lymptoms. Lhank Lod Lor Llashdot!

    Okay, maybe thats not quite so funny as I thought it was going to be!
  • Remember when the courts ruled that the brand name "Webster's" was ruled to be a generic term for a dictionary? Compared to that, this ruling on the "Windows" name seems tame. I mean, at least window is both a common English word and a term for GUI object used across multiple OSes.

    Hm... I wonder, if the case keeps going like this, people can name any OS "Windows", as long as they brand it properly: Sun Windows 2001, AOL Windows ver 5.0, Rayonic's Windows Infinity+1 - 'So there, nyah' Edition.
  • !Windoze (i.e Not Windows...)

    Well... It is Friday afterall. I'll spend today polishing my
    Light Saber [wordsmithdigital.com] for the battle this weekend...

  • There is another new addition to MS English XP.

    window
    n.

    8 - Computer Science. A smurf like looking rectangular area on the screen that displays Microsoft's own file or message dependently of the other areas of the screen.

    The real dictionary term is here [dictionary.com].

  • While technically correct that MS "could loose the final case", I think it's highly unlikely, as you can see from this excerpt of the original order:

    ...Microsoft has only raised serious questions about the merits of its case...(and) has failed to make a sufficient showing of likelihood of success on the merits.

    Given this, we are just biding time for the fat lady to make her stage entrance.

  • Windux (Score:3, Funny)

    by thumbtack ( 445103 ) <thumbtack@FREEBSDjuno.com minus bsd> on Friday May 17, 2002 @01:16PM (#3538678)
    Windux.com [windux.com]
  • "'Pocket PC' is a generic term used throughout the industry," company representative Marianne Peterson said to a judge in a near-empty court. "Microsoft is simply not infringing this trademark...and asks the court to dismiss the case." Cnet [com.com]

    "The evidence relied on by Lindows is insufficient for two reasons," said Microsoft. "First, it shows use of 'windows' as the name of a feature, not as the name of a genus of products. Such feature references may show that 'windows' is descriptive of the goods, but not generic. Second, Lindows' evidence shows repeated uses of Windows as Microsoft's trademark. Thus, it offers no support for a finding of genericness." zdnet [zdnet.co.uk]

    Maybe not a complete contradiction, but amusing nonetheless.

  • finally! i have a simple name i can legally use for those clear things i use to look outside. i was really getting tired of saying, "take a look out the transparent viewing portal" or "please close the invisible atmospheric circulation inhibitor."

Slashdot Top Deals

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Close