To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I am actually more of an Apple guy then a Linux guy. But when I update I mean service packs etc. As Ubuntu is now doing with LTS, Apple just did this week and Red Hat did a couple of months ago.
And yes there are bugs in LTS but they are putting out a point release just like Apple and Red hat did to address some of those bugs.
There are tons of bugs in Xandros business edition but they have not addressed them at all. Read through their fourms and people fuss all the time about this.
And when was the last time Linspire updated anything. When 6.0 came out? Xandros last put out an OS update of ANY sort in 2006.
Stability is what I want. Stability does not only mean you don't update or change, but it also means you fix problems.
For instance Red Hat RHEL 5.0 came out March 14 7007, 5.1 came out November 7 2007. 8 months. 5.2 came out May 21 2008, a little more then 6 months after 5.1. This is what I mean by updates. Regular maintainance releases to fix problems and sometimes add features.
Not major releases but updates.





Member since:
2005-07-12
All good points, but let me address some of them.
"If you are a real supporter of Xandros then you would know that they don't update their offerings very often."
I'm not a "supporter" of Xandros. In fact, I've never used it. I have read some good reveiws of it, and have read that their Windows networking and Active Directory support are excellent.
As for updating offerings, I think that you are probably in the Ubuntu/Fedora mindset, where latest and greatest goodies are features in lue of stability.
That's great for the Linux enthusiast crowd (me included), but is sucks for businesses, regular users, and OEMs. For them, stability is paramount.
That's one of the reasons for Red Hat's huge success. They update every 1-1/2 to 2 years (RHEL), and thus feature "older" versions of stuff. But OEMs, ISVs, and enterprises can count on it. These people avoid Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, etc, like the plague.
"1. They changed from Debian to Ubuntu but not Ubuntu LTS. Now Linspire is going to always be behind as it is now. Still on 7.04 as the base. At least with LTS they would have Ubuntu long term support and updates and could of rolled with that till the next LTS."
I agree with you here. I think it's better to be based on Debian Stable, with backports. Ubuntu is proving too buggy, even with the LTS release.
"2. Making Freespire. Making a free version of something people were paying for??? Now who is gonna pay for it. And being the Freespire is almost as stable, you offer paid support for it and it's more up to date?? That was the end of buying Linspire for me."
Agreed that this killed off people buying the boxed version of Linspire. But that was only a tiny piece of Linspire's revenue. Most of their revenue came from OEM contracts and CNR. Releasing Freespire was probably an attempt to get more community enthusiasm, and mindshare. And selling boxed versions of Linspire to Linux enthusiasts like you and me was never a good business strategy. We get our Linux for free, and don't really need the extra's that come with a boxed set. From a business perspective, emphasizing on OEM contracts and CNR revenue made sense.
"3. Opening CNR. CNR was the only thing of value Linspire had that made it unique. Once they opened it there is no reason to buy Linspire. And they put it on Freespire for free. Double reason not to buy Linspire."
I kinda agree here, but it still remains to be seen. Opening up CNR was Carmony's baby, and I think he was merely trying to expand the market for CNR. But then Carmony left, and the new management don't seem to be fully following through on the strategy. So it remains to be seen whether that was a good or bad move.