| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Duck, Microsoft: Firefox Is Coming To Retail Stores | |
|
||
| Time: 12:18 EST/17:18 GMT | News Source: TechWeb | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Linux operating-system producer Linspire Inc. has found another way to challenge Microsoft: it's offering its OpenOffice.org product suite and the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox browser in a single package in retail channels. Linspire, formerly called Lindows, positions its OOoFf package to directly compete with Microsoft Office. The OpenOffice.org product enables users to create spreadsheets, presentations, and documents using files in popular formats, including .doc, .xls and .ppt. The Linspire product also enables users to utilize the PDF format. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 209 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:48:57 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 12:25:08 PM |
| Hmmm...interesting. What happened to this wave of free opensource? Firefox source code is not public, but mozilla is. And now OpenOffice, which was free (as was Firefox) now requires you to pay $30 for it from Best Buy? What's next? $300.00? |
| #2 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 12:46:31 PM |
| It's an expensive means of distribution. While I understand that there is a price to put your product on the shelf at Bestbuy, it sure does take away from the free lunch. Most people can go into a Bestbuy and pick up a free AOL CD or MSN CD sitting at the counters. |
| #3 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 12:58:45 PM |
| Correct...no free lunch. And soon, no freebies from open source. As noted. |
| #4 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 11/22/2004 1:41:51 PM |
|
"What happened to this wave of free opensource?"
Nothings new, Brian. Don't you follow technology? This is the same model everyone's been talking about for several years. You can use and distribute free code anyway you want, including also selling it. "It's an expensive means of distribution." Selling your product is expensive? More expensive then giving it away? Makie no sense. "most truly large and innovative projects cost money and must make money to be possible. " And? Why are you whining about a product that is both free and commercial then? "Correct...no free lunch." Who cares about lunch. This is free and commercial and open code. Not a free lunch. "And soon, no freebies from open source." It's amazing to see people still don't get it. It's even more amazing that there are people who try to convey their own lack of understanding as if it's a flaw in the model or something new. This is exactly what has been talked about and happening for years. Large, commercial entities can use and distribute free code. They can also charge for it. Customers can get the free code, alter it, distribute it and/or they can purchase it. It is both technologically and commercially viable and continues to grow. |
| #5 By 8556 (12.217.161.186) at 11/22/2004 2:46:38 PM |
|
Running a business requires using more than word processors and spreadsheets.
Is there an open source version of Access that will function equally well and open Access files without exporting to another format and then importing? If so, does it (or, do they) export information to OpenOffice as sweetly as Access does with Word to print reports? |
| #6 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 3:24:29 PM |
|
#6 What was free is now for profit. Buy OpenOffice at Bestbuy. Buy Firefox at Bestbuy. Buy Red Hat at Bestbuy. Buy Mandrake at Bestbuy. Buy Corel Linux Desktop at Bestbuy....oh wait, that was removed...lol. Buy StarOffice at Bestbuy. buy buy buy buy
#7 What does AW have to do with MSware or it's alternatives? #8 $30 at Bestbuy #9 There is not an Access counterpart from Star/Open. Nor do they offer the Outlook alternative. You only get a partial Office suite from Star/Open. This post was edited by AWBrian on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 15:27. |
| #7 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/22/2004 3:29:58 PM |
|
"Firefox source code is not public, but mozilla is. And now OpenOffice, which was free (as was Firefox) now requires you to pay $30 for it from Best Buy? What's next? $300.00?"
Firefox source code IS public and available for free of charge and under an open source licence granting certain freedoms. OpenOffice is also still available free of charge just like before, but additionally it can now be purchased from Best Buy for those who prefer paying for a CD and booklet etc. The only thing that has changed is that OpenOffice and Firefix as well as other Open Source software is becoming more mainstream, reaching people who dont mind paying $30 for a retail box with CDs and instructions etc. "The Linux community brags about "open" source and "free"." AWBrian, youre confusing free as in freedom with free as in beer. Being as involved in Technology as you seemingly are there really is no excuse for this confusion. Its as if youre purposely doing it to spread FUD. So yeah while a lot of OpenSource stuff is free of charge, this fact isn't the free the community is bragging about. "If it is supposed to be "free", and the perception they offer is that it is open and free, why are they charging?" The perception of open and free referrs mostly to the freedoms the open source nature of the software grants. You need to adjust your perception that free of cost is what open source is all about. It is not. Its the other freedoms which are most important to open source advocates, the free of cost factor is merely a nice side effect. As open source goes more mainstream its not surprising that this software is available both free of charge as well as with an associated cost depending on where it is obtained from. Its a matter of choice Brian. You can, if you want still get Open Office or Firefox free. But as an additional option you can now also purchase a CD of it at BestBuy. Not really sure what Your impression that open source advocates' main purpose is to offer cost free software is ill concieved. Because you base the rest of your argument on this wrong perception the rest of your conclusions are equally wrong. This post was edited by tgnb on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 15:44. |
| #8 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 3:33:00 PM |
|
It's not ill conceived. It's the impression and perception that *nix zealots have pushed to the "mainstream". I can accept the fact that I am wrong. However, I find it hard to be wrong when my research shows blatant intent to push "free" products as one of the benefits of "open" source. For a lack of better terms, I will go as far as to say "false advertising". But again, if the open source communities attempt wasn't to imply that the product is "free", then I am entirely wrong. But that is not my finding or understanding.
I guess I should have said that you cannot distribute Firefox "modified" in any way, but you can do that with the mozilla project. This post was edited by AWBrian on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 15:48. |
| #9 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 11/22/2004 3:46:08 PM |
| Yes it is ill concieved. But unless you open your eyes to more than some posts on slashdot .. you probably won't see it. Oh and yes, you CAN distribute firefox modified .. except not with the official Logo. |
| #10 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 3:57:58 PM |
|
I disagree with ill conceived.
However, you CANNOT distribute firefox modified: http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq#free Sounds like tit for tat. Notice the above link says: "Yes! Firefox is open source software, meaning that anyone has the right to download and use the browser for free, to distribute it unmodified to other people, and even to view and modify the source code under the terms of the Mozilla Public License." This post was edited by AWBrian on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 15:58. |
| #11 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 11/22/2004 4:27:43 PM |
|
"Your impression that open source advocates' main purpose is to offer cost free software is ill concieved." HA!
AWBrian, your interpretation of the ideas the open source movement has tried to spread are right on. All you have to do is go back and look at the wording of the organizations themselves. The General Public License, under which the vast majority of Linux-based products (in excess of 95% at last I read in Linux Journal, Circa 2004) are 'protected', was born and is still maintained by the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION. Do you have to walk any further than that to figure it out? Linus Torvalds has said time and time again: "I don't believe you should have to pay for the day-to-day software that your computer needs to run and for you to do your job." That's a verbatim quote from his own Blog that used to exist at Transmeta. He is the father of Linux and a staunch supporter of the FSF and it's licensing terms in the GPL. Face the facts, the overwhemling majority of the open source world was touting "Open source free products will whipe the floor with the blood of Microsoft and proprietary software" when the concept of open source hit its peak a few years ago. The fact is, what was touted as "free" at one time by many individuals no longer exists in such a form. Matthew Szulik (CEO Redhat), Richard Seibt (CEO/President SuSE, Diane Greene (CEO VMWare) to name a few... are individuals who have said in one variation or another that their product is essentially "free" and they will "make money by charging for support rather than product." (Szulik) Well... we now see Red Hat Linux almost entirely vanished from the retail shelves of Best Buy and CompUSA because even they admitted their desktop product was not yet ready for prime time and the price would've continued to climb. The distributions of Linux that exist in the retail pipeline today are typically as expensive or more expensive than Microsoft products at sticker value. The simple fact that open-source free software will have a hard time, if not an impossible task, of beating proprietary software comes directly from "there is no free lunch". You can't hire talented innovative programmers, support, market, improve, question, design, research, and effectively sell your product for 'free'. The costs are there as is evidenced by the increases in the cost of every distribution of Linux and StarOffice to hit the shelves. Years ago I remember listening to people brag to me about how SuSE Linux was only $29.95 for the 'Pro' version while Windows 2000 Upgrade was selling for $89.99. They chuckled and used it as a point to prove to me. The same goes for StarOffice. However, once again, they ran afoul. The prices of both products and many other open-source products that have managed to actually STAY on the retail pipeline have more than tripled in price in almost every instance. You have to pay your costs somewhere! Red Hat has begun developing proprietary software of their own to differentiate themselves in terms of intellectual property from their counterparts. The costs of their server software and management products have increased dramatically. And at one time, these were supposed to be either the "free" or "cheaper alternative" products. All in all, in the end, the software is no longer free and will never be free for those who want their product supported. (And don't BS yourself, that is the majority of the world.) But anyway you slice it, while the concept of open-source is not equivelant to free software, there is no arguing against the fact that open-source for the most part is developed with the intent of being free. The economics, however, do not allow such a utopian market to exist. This post was edited by aamendala on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 16:32. |
| #12 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 4:35:07 PM |
|
#14: Read this again"
"Yes! Firefox is open source software, meaning that anyone has the right to download and use the browser for free, to distribute it **unmodified** to other people, and even to view and modify the source code under the terms of the Mozilla Public License." From Firefox website. I am just reading the writing on the wall my friend. |
| #13 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 11/22/2004 4:53:13 PM |
|
And yes, I am well aware of the FSF text that says "Free software does not mean non-commercial". I am quite prepared to argue my point in the face of such rhetoric as that is a fantasy statement that has absolutely no foundation on which to stand in the real world of business economics.
As well, it should be noted that such verbiage was NOT a part of the original GNU FSF description back in the day. This post was edited by aamendala on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 16:55. |
| #14 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 11/22/2004 4:58:23 PM |
|
<snipped msucks opinion>
Do you have anything substantial to add? |
| #15 By 1658 (24.18.60.13) at 11/22/2004 5:05:12 PM |
|
I hate to ask this because I fear another incoherent response... what is your point?
"Old buggy unstable IE" - Certainly one person's opinion and you're more than free to hold that. Though I wouldn't classify IE as OLD simply because it doesn't support 'tabbed browsing' which seems to be one of the few things the Firefox-zealot can stand on. And a brand new highly polished version has been in the works long before Firefox hit the mainstream press months ago. "The open source model can work" - Not in terms of commerical money-driven software development it can't. At least under the GPL. If we're discussing the BSD license, I would recant that statement and rephrase. But in terms of the GPL, I can show you all the evidence in the world if you choose to argue it. Every ounce of economic and business history in any country can prove my point. I'll wait till it gets to that point first. "like community driven projects." - Okay, there it can work. Certainly. Never said anything to the contrary. But if you think that Sun purchased StarOffice, Firefox was developed, OpenOffice.org undergoes constant development, and Red Hat continues to build their server platform for the purposes of not making money and devoting their time to the 'community', you're hilariously uneducated. No other way I can state it. "That's an interesting way of generating income, and they are not confusing the terms of "free" as in beer or speech, but making money." Ahh... the typical FSF quote about free beer. We'll attack this when we discuss the economic infeasibility of software with no intellectual property protection. "Just because the microsoft business model can't make or isnt interested in making a profit in a specific area, it don't mean anybody else's model can." What? Care to clarify that? Never did I say that market models through which we've had difficulty turning in cashflow were markets to be abandoned. This post was edited by aamendala on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 17:12. |
| #16 By 11131 (64.132.138.66) at 11/22/2004 5:27:54 PM |
|
#9 By bobsireno #10 By AWBrian: "There is not an Access counterpart from Star/Open."
I guess that you have not been keeping up with Open Office much because there is an Access counterpart and it will be part of Open Office 2.0 next year. You can get it with the beta releases now if I am not mistaken. I would pay for Open Office, if the price is not to much. I will never buy another copy of MS Office because it cost to much. I can buy a low end computer for the price of MS Office. Alister |
| #17 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 11/22/2004 6:31:38 PM |
|
AWBrian, you should not stop reading after you see the word unmodified. Distributing it unmodified is only ONE of MANY things you can do. You can ALSO, modify the source code under the terms of the MPL...
The MPL clearly states: ==== 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant. The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims: (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and ==== Its not my fault you selectively read only the parts that you like and ignore the rest of the statement. This post was edited by tgnb on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 18:34. |
| #18 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 11/22/2004 6:39:48 PM |
|
"But you're also clearly adamant about this viewpoint. Where's that Firefox review? This stuff might be worth mentioning; if you put it in a review you can spread it around so everyone can be made aware of the cons of Firefox. ActiveWin could host it and raise it to the high profile it deserves. You could spread the truth about Firefox. It will be positive publicity in that ActiveWin will be the only web site reporting the truth."
Oh, I second that. Pretty please put your detailed analysis and review about Firefox on Activewin. Oh but i know you won't because its not YOUR JOB to tell them whats wrong with their product.. LOL. |
| #19 By 37 (68.185.170.174) at 11/22/2004 6:45:00 PM |
| #29, see #30, which is what I am talking about. |
| #20 By 37 (68.185.170.174) at 11/22/2004 6:50:34 PM |
|
#23, you are incorrect. The current version of ooo doesn't have an Access counterpart...it has what is called "database tools". Hardly an Access offering. Believe me, I have it and have used it. It's a very simple database tool. And they still don't have an important app, Outlook counterpart.
I can't speak for ooo2 as it has not been released, and ooo 1.1.3 is beta buggy enough on my system. |
| #21 By 37 (68.185.170.174) at 11/22/2004 6:51:43 PM |
| Halcyon, how about you do a fair and balanced review and we can post a link to it. |
| #22 By 1845 (67.169.248.36) at 11/22/2004 6:53:41 PM |
| FoxNews-esque fair and balanced ? ;-) |
| #23 By 37 (68.185.170.174) at 11/22/2004 6:55:26 PM |
|
#27 re: f***ed company
I see you are posting lies again. MSN Beta search results do NOT MS as the result. |
| #24 By 37 (68.185.170.174) at 11/22/2004 6:56:02 PM |
| Dead on Bob :) |
| #25 By 12071 (203.173.50.141) at 11/23/2004 5:19:28 AM |
| #39 Don't forget... If Brian writes a really good review then he'll get an extra special MVP from Microsoft for all the good work he's doing by spreading pro-MS information like "Firefox source code is not public". It really is a win-win situation which is why I'm suprised that he hasn't jumped on the opportunity yet! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 209 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:48:57 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
