But how does this really prevent freedom? What IS so corrupt about Lindows?
Don't know much about Lindows, do you?
That's no crime, let me explain a couple of things. Lindows' corporate attitude is what the problem is. The "insider" program is generally closed and that's problematic. Although not illegal, they have not released changes that they made to wine when it was under a BSD style license - which is unethical (if not illegal) and damages the freedom of the community inherently.
The NDA issues of the "insider" program also damage people's freedom. Although they can't stop people from distributing GNU GPL'ed software, it's the attitude that is very problematic. Then, after the community criticizes their approach, they have the balls to be surprised and disenchanted. Well, stop pissing on us - that's the solution.
Anyway, don't kid yourself - these activities are damaging to Freedom and they are things that the community SHOULD be concerned with.
In a capitalist society, which wether any of us like it or not describes most of the world, every company's goal is to capitalize on their product. The idea is that when multiple companies capitalize against each other, they must either develope better technology or better price\licensing than the competitor.
Thats why the US government is trying to break down the MS monopoly: When only one company is around and locks in consumers, there is no competition to drive technology forward, and the whole point of capitalism is lost.
Nice speech - albeit slightly off. First and foremost nobody here is attacking capitalism. Your entreaty to the emotional leftovers of the cold war is misplaced here.
Second, don't be fooled into believing that there's some altruistic goal in the US antitrust trial. If the problems had been raised by the community they would not have been addressed. It is strictly because other major corporations brought up the issues (campaign funding) that it was being addressed.
(Like what UnitedLinux is doing, which you people also shoot down.)
UL has a number of issues associated with it. Not the least of which is the fact that it's leading companies have a questionable reputation with the community, to say the least.
Let's not get into that here - it's OT. But let's just say that I think your attitude is dangerous. The community must address potential issues - we can't walk rank and file into situations trusting people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy (Ransom Love) in the past.
The other way is to actually get people to pay for the product or service. Like paying for click'n'run. If they produce profit frmo that, they can fund developement of things like the kernel, glibc, x and other core components, improvements which due to the licensing MUST be returned to the community, and thats a good thing.
I don't see your point. Nobody is taking issue with the fact that Lindows is charging for a software distribution service - that is a time honored model of getting funding for Free Software companies. And I have not read anything that anyone has said against this model here. I know I certainly wasn't referring to it.
every Linux program is a bitch to install already. (Thats why click'n'run is important, installing is like the #1 ease of use problem here.)
Actually, most GNU/Linux programs are easy to install from a usage point of view. Click-n-Run (like Red Carpet) adds an easy to use interface to it (GUI, not CLI -- although the difference is one of taste)... which has significant value.
But, don't FUD the install package managers - they're actually well designed generally speaking.
So even if you don't use software from the corrupt Lindows company, you can still profit from them profiting.
In a way, yes - but they can also do a lot to damage us as well, if they aren't ethical.
Code submission (which Lindows has thus not done in significant amounts) is not the only issue. If the company gets powerful and has, from day 1, attacked our way of doing things (and they have) that is not good for the community. This has nothing to do with capitalism or business models. It has to do with respect for the community. Lindows - much like Caldera - has shown a measure of contempt for the community. I find that odd considering the fact that 99% of their product was created and "donated" to them by that same community.
If people don't learn to treat this politically - we're all screwed. What you are espousing here is the kind of damage that Open Source ideologies (as opposed to Free Software ideologies) are doing to the community. Freedom is inherently pragmatic. Without it, GNU/Linux means nothing.
It's that simple. And if they want to support the use of NDA style agreements, then I will not support them - and neither should you.