Xandros, Inc. has released a 1.1 edition of Xandros Desktop Deluxe. Version 1.1 enhancements include: Support for Microsoft Office XP and Adobe Photoshop 7.0, Mozilla 1.3.1 with spell checking and spam filtering, OpenOffice.org office suite 1.0.3, Evolution groupware client 1.2.4, enhanced hardware detection, Intel i830/845/855 graphics drivers. Xandros Desktop Deluxe 1.1 includes a printed user guide, a Technology Preview CD, and 30 days of e-mail installation support.
Xandros Releases Xandros Desktop 1.1
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’m using Gentoo here. No, I’m not going to say that ‘everybody should be using Gentoo’ since that’s a ludicrous statement.
However, I’m using Evolution 1.4.3, Mozilla 1.4 and Ximian Open Office 1.1rc2.
I wouldn’t even consider going back to Evo 1.2.4 and OOo 1.0.3, they are light years behind their GTK2 enhanced and much more featured older brothers.
When distributions make a major release with (to me) such dated software… I find myself asking why.
Sure, OOo 1.1rc2 is only a release candidate. But, hell, Microsoft got away with releasing beta-quality software for a decade before they acheived their 2000 suite. People don’t mind the occasional crash for all that extra niceness.
So, what do I get with the new Xandros? KDE2.2.2 still? Old Mozilla, old Open Office? Also, I still cannot try before buying.
Old software, old desktop environment, non antialiased fonts…why on earth would i even consider paying, or wasting the time downloading this?
it’s companies like this which give linux businesses a bad name! every time a commercial vendor goes down the sh**ter, people say “Linux isn’t ready for enterprise/desktop”.
Xandros: How long do you expect to survive whilst trying to peddle this junk?!?
Actually… You cant even download it
It needs to be shipped to you!
It’s really a sad story Xandros do all these “crazy stuff”; because Xandros really IS a nice distro.
Xandros was the distro that got me into linux in the first place, however they have bizzare practices that make them undesirable…..
Using KDE 2.2.x leads to the end-user getting a very bad impression of Linux. Linux is rapidly evolving, which means that staying on the cutting edge is very important. There is a world of difference between KDE 2.x and KDE 3.x, and its not a good thing that an otherwise good distribution for new users should be so off the curve.
PS> I’ve got to throw in a plug for Gentoo and KDE. Thanks to the CVS ebuild mechanism, keeping up with KDE’s CVS version is as easy as running “emerge kdelibs && emerge kdebase” every so often. And the latest KDE CVS (which, as of July 25, has both Qt 3.2 and a raft of Apple KHTML updates) is really, really awesome. The biggest improvement is speed. On my 2GHz P4 (which is getting middle of the road by now) I can’t make any of the major apps rubber band. Even Konqueror with Slashdot loaded reflows all that text and all those graphics with only the slightest hint of redraw at the edges. External menubar support (now you can put it into a child panel and autohide it) is finally stable, and a lot of dialog boxes have been made more asthetically pleasing. Its also very stable, and hasn’t crashed a single time in the few days I’ve been using it. 3.2 should be an incredibly good release — its too bad that Xandros folks will miss out…
what is up with all of the 3 messages above?
hey! they did not claim to be on the bleading edge with their packages!
as long the software is working an people are happy with it, then why the hell do they need to put the newest of the newest stuff on their cd?
openoffice 1.0.3.1 is okay! it is the latest stable release!
mozilla and evolution are not that stone old! they work and do their job very well…
anyway… i use my self gentoo, but i can absolutly understand that xandros is putting all this software on their release and i can understand, that it does NOT have to be allways the newest release!
and one note to Charlie:
But, hell, Microsoft got away with releasing beta-quality software for a decade before they acheived their 2000 suite. People don’t mind the occasional crash for all that extra niceness.
no! this is not true! people like to use their computer and software to get jobs/things done. geeks and freaks on the other hand like new, fast, better, longer, whatever…. things. but not the normal jon doe.
this “extra niceness” is just nothing more and less then: niceness!
but a software working and not crashing and helping you to get your job done is: great!
niceness is something very subjective. for me “niceness” is a clear and very functional interface (from the visual view point). but i know people, wich declare a colorfull desktop environment (<irony>when i see their desktop, i am 100% sure they are taking LSD!</irony>) with sound and fancy animations on every corner. and i don’t like this! this is not at all nice for me! it distrubs me to do my job!
so… you see… niceness is very subjective.
cheers
SteveB
Sorry to say it, but Xandros simply looks terrible compared with many other current distros. I was quite excited when I first heard about it, but unfortunately it looks clumsy. Look at those file manager icons, they just look amateur. I feel they should have stuck with the standard KDE ones at least.
Other “desktop” distros have made great strides: Lycoris and Lindows look quite slick these days, but Xandros, no matter how nice it is underneath, just *looks* awful, which gives a bad first impression.
No doubt they’re planning a 2.0 release that will use KDE 3.1 etc, in which case it might be a big step forward.
actually – despite the geeks love of the latest and greatest – there is in fact a need for Xandros. they produce a very polished desktop suitable for people who are not just new to linux – but new to computers. things work and they work well and intuitively.
and if xandros can get people to pay for this – good luck to them!
even though i don’t use it myself – i know i wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it to a certain section of the population.
i am less visual oriented then i am functional oriented.
anyway… if i can choose to have functionality AND VISUAL effects, then i don’t say no to it. but first comes functionality, stability, clean interface, etc and then at the end i look on how it looks.
cheers
SteveB
xandros’ target market couldn’t give a rats ass about kde3. as long as what they have works, and works well….that’s all that matters.
lycoris looks at things in a similar way and people continually dump on them too. lycoris rules for simple home desktop users. it doesn’t have the latest and greatest, but who cares! linux power users? so what? linux troll children? who cares…they don’t actually buy anything anyway.
xandros make a good distro, so don’t knock it cause it’s not “mandrake”. that’s the whole point you jackasses.
I’m a seasoned linux geek. I got a copy of xandros from <ahem> edonkey… my methods may not be appreciated but I like to try before i buy. So I installed it.. and you know what? I like it very much.. it’s a neat system.. Xandros file manager and xandros networks are very interesting and useful apps.. and it works.. I personally was shocked.. sure the icons by default suck.. but you can change them.. and heck for me.. they kinda grew on me.
guess it depends on your outlook. But as far as I am concerned, if xandros helps linux get exposure as a desktop.. then stop bitching.. let them have fun and enjoy linux.. and help everyone else.. even if xandros creates one lifetime convert.. that’s good enough for me. Unless it directly affects you.. don’t complain.
Out of the 8+ distros I tried, it was the easiest to get up and running and its file manager was better than anything I saw elsewhere (though I have not tried Rox Filer).
I don’t recall any other distro that would allow me to share files with my Windows boxes simply by right clicking on folders – nice.
It was one of my favorite distros out of the bunch, although dated nonetheless.
I wonder why they mention the Intel 8x5G chipsets. Where they broken in a previous release?
I say this because RedHat also had many problems dealing with these chipsets. Its unfortunate that some keeps dropping the balls on these things. Is anyone over at XFree86 Headquarters even carrying the ball?
What frustrates me is XF86 is somewhat module, except there’s no way for me to grab a binary driver module from Intel and install it on an old distro to make the graphics card work. I have to update all of XFree86. Unless I’m just stoopid and didn’t find the right info in my google search. XF86 either needs to keep up-to-date with all the latest graphics hardware and offer at the very least priliminary/VESA 2D support for upcoming graphics cards, or start releasing binary modules for all the cards for each release of XF86 in an easy to manage format. Hey, why not just make a quick GUI around installing video drivers like on Windows.
Frustrating, just frustrating.
With reference to KDE, its not really niceness and features that are the reason for wanting 3.x, its usability. KDE 2.x series was focused on building the core technology. It was the 3.x series that focused on making things fast and easy to use. KDE 2.x is dreadfully slow, harder to use, and less polished than KDE 3.x. That’s the real reason for dumping on Xandros for using it.
No doubt they’re planning a 2.0 release that will use KDE 3.1 etc, in which case it might be a big step forward.
Yes they are, by the end of this year I think. They dont have any “milestone plan” as I know of.
This 1.1 version was supposed to be this summers “event”.
Xandros is the leading developer of cost-effective, installation-friendly, Linux-based operating environments offering Windows compatibility and unparalleled technical support.
And in other news, I am the leading developer of PHP-based love-poem-related web communities offering a database of SMS poems and a message board.
It’s not the programs following that is the main issue. The main issue is mostly: KDE 3* and Linux 2.4*.
There are huge speed improvements between KDE 2* and KDE 3* and a lot of bugfixes + new devices support in the Linux 2.4* kernel.
Even if it is OK for Joe Average to have a slow performance system it hurts the reputation of Linux. (“Oh you mean Linux…the slow system I run at work?”).
Another thing about XandrOS is that they have almost no interaction with the community; wich I think is not good. But they have choosen to do this (they have said several times) and well; thats theyre business practice.
I do use XandrOS every day (I have even bought it, Mike Johnston:-D); but only as e-mail reader + maybe a little OOo-ing. If it had the speed improvements in KDE3 I would use it for more than that.
Until that happens I will stick to Gentoo and Lindows.
Perhaps they could release the old version 1.0 as an iso so we could at least try it.
The difference between 1.0 and 1.1 is minimal. I would rate it just “upgrading of programs”, wich can be upgraded via Xandros Networks (update program) anyways.
Thats why they can’t do it
Yes… The point why I still use Xandros
The file manager is really good, although Konqueror has improved.
They should release the Xandros File Manager as Open Source! That would rock completely…but destroy one of the reasons to use Xandros!
Xandros really is an excellent distribution with a lot of unique features for both the home user and the enterprise. It may not be for everyone, but with it has an incredibly easy installation. Xandros File Manager works seamlessly with Windows partitions including NTFS, and it’s one of the better distros for Windows refugees and those who just want to get their work done. While I do agree that their version of KDE and the fonts are a little antiquated, the facts are that this is a stable, well-thought-out distro. You can update most of the features you don’t like (but not KDE) with apt-get, and you won’t be in dependency hell. BTW, I understand that v1.1 is little more than a facelift, ala Win98SE, and that Xandros v2.0 is being worked on and may possibly be out later this year.
“Another thing about XandrOS is that they have almost no interaction with the community; wich I think is not good. But they have choosen to do this (they have said several times) and well; thats theyre business practice.”
Well, they’re Debian-based, meaning that they make use of the Debian tree with a few customized/tailored packages of their own thrown on top. This means more testing for the Debian packages, and it’d make good sense for the Xandros folks to send bugfixes/report bugs to the Debian maintainers, as this will take a good deal of the maintenance grunt-work out of their hands. It also means that Xandros have a vested interest in Debian’s future. Sounds good for the community in general (and Debian in particular) to me.
>Using KDE 2.2.x leads to the end-user getting a very bad impression of Linux. Linux is rapidly evolving, which means that staying on the cutting edge is very important.
No, staying on the cutting edge isn’t the least bit important. What’s important is having a system that works. Xandros is just that, it’s a Linux that works.
They claim Office XP and Photoshop 7 can run on it. Have anyone tried this? Or is it another bullsh**t?
As far as I know it works. It’s Codeweavers Wine…and that is supposed to be able to run it.
You can try it before buying, but you have to wait ’til it hits the newsgroups.
Patience, lad.
Are you serious James? Are you meaning stolen/ripped-off copies or what? I’m confused.
Of course he means piracy
I use OfficeXP with CXOffice in Gentoo and it runs GREAT, and perfect (with AA’d fonts). And since CXOffice is included in Xandros, OfficeXP will do the same with Xandros.
However, bleeding edge Linux with the latest and greatest KDE may also leave a bad taste in a newbie’s mouth, especially so if he comes to Linux not for the flexibility of Linux, rather just because it is an more secure and stable altenative.
You have to admit that KDE has a lot of bugs, a lot of quirky mistakes, etc. Now, you can say the same for Windows and Mac OS X in this regard, but remember, Xandros isn’t trying to be as good rather to be [/i]better[/i] than these products.
And moving to KDE 3 would be a herculean and long task for Xandros – they have to move everything they have over the Qt3. In addition to patching up KDE to be as good as their version of KDE 2 (in relative to bugs, of course). But what are the business gains for Xandros?
KDE 3 would break a lot of binary compatiblity. Same with kernel 2.6. So isn’t it rather smarter to make the move together? As in wait till 2.6 stabilizes, and then also wait for a latter release of KDE 3.2, this would be much easier for Xandros customers. Or why not they wait for KDE 4?
Hehe.. I haven’t even thought about KDE 4 yet — is there a time frame for that?
> I haven’t even thought about KDE 4 yet — is there a time frame for that?
No.
>>Of course he means piracy
<<
>>Are you serious James? Are you meaning stolen/ripped-off copies or what? I’m confused.<<
Xandros is a Linux distribution and like all Linux Distributions is distributed under the GPL it can therefore be copied and distributed freely by any means the user likes and by its very nature cannot be pirated software.
“Xandros is a Linux distribution and like all Linux Distributions is distributed under the GPL it can therefore be copied and distributed freely by any means the user likes and by its very nature cannot be pirated software.”
Best nip this one in the bud real quick.
That’s crap. Xandros contains proprietary components, e.g. their file manager, which they rely upon to differentiate their product from the herd. They provide source for the Open Source components of their distro, and said components can be freely redistributed, but the distribution as a whole cannot.
BUT, Xandros charges 100 for the distribution of their version of the GPL’ed code, which does make it piracy.
Xandros is what used to be known as Corel Linux, which does have a number of proprietary tools and widgets-just because they release it on a linux platform, does that mean the code is not theirs, or that they cannot charge for it?
Reread the GPL. Just becasue the source is open does not mean that you cannot charge for it, or “that by its very nature cannot be pirated software”.
From what I understand, Xandros also includes Codeweaver’s Crossover office, which is also GPL’ed but is also proprietary.
So it is pirated stuff.
Anyone thought of just installing KDE 3 and compiling the new kernel on Xandros on their own? I’d like to hear if anyone has done this, and what their results were.
“Anyone thought of just installing KDE 3 and compiling the new kernel on Xandros on their own? I’d like to hear if anyone has done this, and what their results were.”
Xandros applications such as their filemanager are compiled for KDE2, so you would lose that functionality. You would basically be left with a regular Debian distro.
The kernel is also customised so that you can run netraverse on it without recompiling.
In short- probably not worth the bother….
I agree that Xandros doesn’t have much interaction with the community, but when the very same employees were at Corel, they did. Corel once had twenty KDE-cvs developers.
I said nothing of any proprietary software included with the Xandros Desktop Product. The extra programs that come with the Xandros Distribution may or may not be released under the GPL but the Xandros OS itself does and always will fall fully under the GPL and can be copied and distributed freely along with any other Programs that come with the Xandros Desktop that also fall under the GPL. I think you need to read and understand the GPL before posting comments on it.In particular this:
I’d like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can’t treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs–but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it “part of” a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
As someone who HAS updated to KDE3 on (a legally purchased) Xandros install, both via installing the TechPreview that comes with the box and by updating the debian sources to unstable and dist-upgrading, I’d say it probably isn’t worth it.
It may just be my experience, but while doing this does give you a reasonably more up-to-date system, you do lose quite a bit of the things that make Xandros special. I also found that it has a tendancy to really confuse apt-get (to the point that when trying to install mplayer required uninstalling KDE :/). I have to say that I am not a debian expert (grown up on Slackware for the past 7 years) so someone more debian-aware could probably fix that.
Xandros is aimed at corporate workstations where employees do not need the latest and greatest software but reliable package that works well and has as much MS compatibility as possible. In this area it excels and I wish them well. For those that want more cutting edge software then there is more than enough alternatives. Not sure that Xandros are hurting the image of Linux much since they are hardly one of the big players.
“I said nothing of any proprietary software included with the Xandros Desktop Product. The extra programs that come with the Xandros Distribution may or may not be released under the GPL but the Xandros OS itself does and always will fall fully under the GPL and can be copied and distributed freely along with any other Programs that come with the Xandros Desktop that also fall under the GPL.”
Yes… What you originally said was misleading and inaccurate.
Let me quote you again:
“Xandros is a Linux distribution and like all Linux Distributions is distributed under the GPL it can therefore be copied and distributed freely by any means the user likes and by its very nature cannot be pirated software.”
You specifically referred to the distribution. The distribution is the product sold by Xandros. The product sold by Xandros contains both Open Source and proprietary elements. Hence, the Xandros Linux distribution is not freely redistributable, and is not licensed under the GPL, contrary to your earlier statement.
Anyway, it looks like we’re now in agreement.
From Section 2 of the GPL:
<You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.>
So, if I’m Xandros, I have to disclose what I did. They do this.
<b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.>
All this says is that GPL’ed stuff has to remain GPL’ed stuff, since I don’t hold the copyright. I can however, add my own proprietary (COREL) code to it, but if it is modified GPL code, I have to transfer my copyrights to the users.
<c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)>
I need to give fair warning about the limited liability of the code.
<These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.>
If I have code that is propreitary, it has to be distinct, you are correct. However….I’m still obligated to provide the soruce. Xandros does this. This gets sticky in Xandro’s case, since I beleive there is nonGPL’ed code in the Codewaever’s WINE package. Who has the rights to that?
<Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.>
I tweak it, I’m bound to the GPL. I build it, I’m not. But here is the kicker:
<In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.>
So, If I have proprietary tools that are not based on existing linux/OSS code, and are described as proprietary tools include along with the linux distrobution I’ve collected, I STILL RETAIN MY PRORPIETARY RIGHTS.
So, I can release the code, as per the GPL, but the code cannot, by any means, be available by any manner the user choses, unless I expressly give that right in the EULA for my prorpietary tools. This gets down to who has the rights of transfer-Xandros does, and they intend to charge for it.
To the extent that they compy with sections 2 and 3 of the GPL, any non-authorized copying of the entire CD is, in fact, piracy.
Where is the need for seperation? It’s not a question of how the code runs, but HOW IT WAS CREATED.
oh for gods sake shut up.. this is not a place to argue about the frigging gpl now. god you people have no lives.
“Old software, old desktop environment, non antialiased fonts…why on earth would i even consider paying, or wasting the time downloading this?”
I take it you havent ever tried the desktop environment? Its not just any old KDE. Its got so many extra features its silly. Its barely recognisable…
Shut up yourself.
If you don’t like it, just don’t participate. Don’t ruin it for everyone else by hurling abuse from the sidelines.
If you read closely, you’ll see that it *is* at least vaguely pertinent to the subject at hand, and therefore not off-topic in the slightest. It’s not as though the thread was hijacked. Zaphrod was attempting to draw some silly arbitrary distinction betwen Xandros the distro, Xandros the product and Xandros the OS, and using a (wrong, IMO) interpretation of the GPL to try to lend weight to his argument. Justin responded with a critique of said interpretation.
“god you people have no lives.”
Said the pot to the kettle. 😀
You specifically referred to the distribution. The distribution is the product sold by Xandros. The product sold by Xandros contains both Open Source and proprietary elements. Hence, the Xandros Linux distribution is not freely redistributable, and is not licensed under the GPL, contrary to your earlier statement.
I will word this point another way and expand upon it. One does not release a distribution or “OS” under a license. (The exceptions are usually such operating systems released with software from a single entity, e.g. Microsoft Windows or Apple OS X.)
Especially with GNU/Linux, distributions (“Operating Systems”) are collections of software that (hopefully) work together to allow operation of the computer system. Each software in the system has a license. With FreeBSD, much of the software is released under the BSD license. Yet, one does not say FreeBSD is released under the BSD license because it also includes packages using different licenses, such as Apache with its The Apache Software License. The Debian GNU/Linux distribution is not released under the GPL, rather, much of the software comprising of the distro is released under the GPL. (Other parts, such as Apache, are under different licenses.)
Another major point to make is that various groups have gone around and labeled certain distributions (or even operating system models, e.g. systems based around the Linux kernel) as Free, non-Free, proprietary, facsist, bloated, evil, etc. Those labels have little relevance to the exact licenses used by each software under the distribution. The blanket labeling of all Linux kernel-based operating systems as Free and Open Source is inaccurate as it is possible to include non-Free, non-Open Source, non-redistributable software with operating systems based on the Linux kernel. Also, blanket labeling of a single distribution as Free (and Open Source) is also misleading. There are many licenses that can be labeled as Free, and there are many that can be labeled as Open Source. There are several groups (and many individuals) that will do the labeling for you. The Free Software Foundation < http://www.gnu.org/ > and the Open Software Initiative < http://www.opensource.org/ > are two groups the label licenses. What this means is that Free and Open Source does not mean the same to everyone.
This means that FOSS != GPL. Another example is that a GNU/Linux distribution does not imply inclusion of only Free and Open Source software. Yet another example is that something with the Linux kernel != Free. Xandros – proprietary software == Free (redistributable). Xandros != Free. SuSE – YaST == Free. SuSE != 100% Free (based on someone’s labeling of YaST as not Free, as it not freely redistributable even though the source to YaST is available).
Aside from distributing propriatery software with free and open source software, there are other methods of preventing redistribution without permission. For example, ISO images can be copyrighted to prevent redistribution of the ISO image (or CD) withought permission. An example of this is the OpenBSD project.
With GNU/Linux distributions, there is often confusion between the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux distribution (e.g. Mandrake), and the GPL. Hopefully, by reading this post, you have seen that they are different. Also, hopefully, you can see past such misleading blanket labelings of Linux as always Free, or worse, as implying the GPL at all times.
Sorry about the rant ;]
Good points.
“The Free Software Foundation < http://www.gnu.org/ > and the Open Software Initiative < http://www.opensource.org/ > are two groups the label licenses.”
Debian’s another one. See http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines for details on their criteria. In fact, the OSI’s “definition” is based upon the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
“What this means is that Free and Open Source does not mean the same to everyone.”
Hehe, too true.
That’s why I put the word “definition” above in quotation marks. OSI’s purpose is (from their website, http://www.opensource.org) “managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community”. Whilst they must realize that they surely can’t speak for everybody (as you said), they seem to genuinely think that there *should* be only one definition, e.g. this thread on debian-legal (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00…) where OSI’s vice-chairman suggests “convergence” of the DFSG and the OSD. Unfortunately, he saw this as happening through Debian abandoning its own definition and adopting OSI’s “whole cloth”, as he put it. Needless to say, there weren’t many takers for this idea.
Anyway, I found that thread rather interesting, as it kind of reveals that not only are there different definitions (or guidelines, as the case might be ;-), but some of their proponents actually view themselves as being *in competition* with the others. Crazy stuff.
Now that I can get my law degree on gpl, I would like to know what you would recomend to a windows user who would desperately like to switch (tried BeOs and liked it but it just wasn’t friendly enough for a non-geek) to something non-microsoft. Please don’t recommend Lindows.