Talk:Linspire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Linspire has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
To-do list for Linspire: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Rewrite chronologically
  • Clarify license/source model issue with OS Infobox template
This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Discussion

Why does Freespire redirect to Linspire? Will this be changed once Freespire is released in August?

I think Freespire should be forked into it's own article, since it's independent of mainstream Linspire. Rhys42 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Done! see Freespire . zvonsully 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Try cancelling an annual subscription! It's impossible.

Block quote Dear XYZ, We hope you're enjoying your CNR Warehouse membership! As a courtesy to members, we just wanted to remind you that you will reach the anniversary of your annual membership in 30 days. For your convenience, you will not need to take any further action to continue your membership. Should you need any help, visit our Support section by clicking the Support tab on Linspire.com.

When you try to cancel you get:

Warning: require_once(CNRAutoresponders.inc) [function.require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /linspire/trunk/public/linspire.com/shop/secdocs/user/mylinspire_cancellation.php on line 5 Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required 'CNRAutoresponders.inc' (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php:/linspire/live/private/common/include:/linspire/live/private/common/PEAR') in /linspire/trunk/public/linspire.com/shop/secdocs/user/mylinspire_cancellation.php on line 5

Support is useless. This will be the second payment of $49.95 that I cant cancel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.179.42 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Criticism: I think that this distro unfairly has a very negative "criticism" section that goes out of its way to put down Linspire and make them look bad. Why doesn't the Ubuntu (Linux distribution) have a section called "Criticism"? What about other distros? Xandros has a section called "Criticism" too. But, their's is nowhere near as harsh as the Linspire article. So, the basis for the criticism is what? That it is commercial and costs money (and the Ubuntu fanboys don't like that)? I think that there should be some effort made to standardize these "criticism" sections so that it doesn't come across as the favoritism that it really is. Binaryloop 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section looks okay to me, it seems to mention both the criticism and its counterpoint for most of the points it maes, although it really really needs some cites. Whether or not other articles have criticism sections is fairly irrelevent to this one: either the criticism in this article is fair or it is not, tit-for-tat is not a valid reason to change it. Of course, if you do feel there is sufficient criticism of Ubuntu to warrant a section, feel free to add it to the article. NicM 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok. I won't bring up the other distros as it relates to this article. But, you mentioned that "it really needs some cites" -- and that is what my complaint is centered around. Without valid citations and references to back this up it is merely a matter of opinion. Is there a time limit or statute of limitation for these citations? What if they never appear? Will this article continue to display these personal opinions as facts? Binaryloop 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the intention is that the item is tagged so that the reader knows it is not backed up, and whoever cares to may add a cite or edit the assertion into a more acceptable form. If you remove or change them you would be in a good position to argue that they not be restored unless a cite is produced. On closer reading, the section probably does need a rewrite, the criticism seems rather handwavey rather than real criticism, and some of the rebuttals almost stray into advertisement. This isn't to say that there hasn't been some real criticism: it is lax to not currently make some mention of Pamela Jones' article ([1], [2]) and the response from Linspire ([3] and various other places).
I don't have a lot of time to search but there does seem to be a little material out there on technical criticisms, such as [4], although these do seem a bit of a stretch to me and unless an article about it, or a post from someone well-known in the field, can be found it probably isn't worth including. NicM 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GA comments

The "History" section has very few dates in it, maybe more chronology, date of founding, date of first release, date of start of MS suit etc. would make it feel more "history" rather than "background"...

[edit] Restructure/rewrite

I propose to restructure and rewrite the article to make it more cronological. It seems that Linspire is undergoing interesting developments: early lawsuits, criticism about security, announcing Freespire and open-sourcing CNR. At the moment, some of these events are referred to not once, but several times in the article. We may find that some headers become redundant and that the article can be shorter and more informative as a result. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source model and license

This is something I struggle with. The license field currently says "Various", which means no more than "more than one", but excludes neither pure FOSS nor pure proprietary. If it is a mixture of those two categories, please explicitly say so (as in "Free and proprietary")!

Source model - I've asked for clarification on the template talk page of what this is meant to be, and have had no good answer yet. I'm not sure how useful the concept is for Linux distributions, all of which consist of a myriad packages, not all of which have GPL-compatible licenses. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to nail the exact mixture, so long as it's noted that Linspire uses both models. Chris Cunningham 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

This article is really beginning to get pretty shiny. Could do with being expanded in the history section, and some more concrete data needs to go into the technical stuff, but it doesn't read like an advert any more and it contains a lot of good information. Chris Cunningham 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree!  Tcrow777  talk  01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it is already a Good article.  Tcrow777  talk  01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cash

"As part of the licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated $24 million cash (for a case which Microsoft itself brought), and Lindows, Inc. transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed its name to Linspire, Inc." I sort of doubt that Microsoft Corporation representatives actually issued payment in the form of paper "cash". Also, it was stated previosly in the section that Microsoft had filed the suit, so is the "(for a case which Microsoft itself brought)" part really necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.39.161 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

"Cash" doesn't necessarily mean paper money. In this context, it means $24 million in actual unrestricted money, as opposed to $24 million in stock, for example. 209.226.83.230 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linspire and the community

The "open source support" section seems one sided. Linspire is a frequently criticised and ignored by the community due to having the largest amount of proprietary software in their systems, but this section makes them sound like a pillar of the community.

Also, that section makes it sond like they translated the OS into many languages, when in fact most of the translation was there before they even arrived, and most of the work after they arrived was done by other distros. They contributed a bit, probably, but their work is very much the minority.

And what does the 90% "of Linspire applications" refer to? Is that 90% of the applications in their distro? Or 90% of the proprietary stuff they lump on top of the OS? Gronky 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, they do in fact sponsor (or claim to) quite lot, and if they are lying or hyperbolising their contributions then we can't very well just say so, we need a reference.
I'd quite like to add a "however, Linspire has been criticised" paragraph to that section about proprietary software (and perhaps the selling-Debian complaint that used to be in the criticism section), but I can't find any reasonable cites. Aside from the Freespire Groklaw article, which I think is better where it is in the Freespire section.
With regard to the translation, I've changed it slightly so it doesn't seem to imply that they did all the work, but they do sponsor the organisation which assists in doing so. NicM 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Here's one link: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15726 about them trying to rig the DistroWatch rankings. Gronky 03:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, that's good, I'll see if I can mention it. NicM 09:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I didn't realise you already had, except you cannot use it to justify a claim that Linspire has received "strong criticism" for including proprietary software. The link does not say that, it says they were accused of attempting to rig an online poll, which has nothing to do with criticism on proprietary software. NicM 09:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
That ref isn't supposed to back up the claim of criticism for including proprietary software. That ref is for the ballot stuffing allegations. I'll find a ref for the former now. Gronky 12:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've shifted things about so this is covered by the Groklaw thing. Not that more wouldn't be nice, of course. NicM 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lsongs and Lphotos

I've removed this from the "open source support" section:

Linspire is also the leading maintainer of the Lsongs (an iTunes equivalent) and Lphoto projects.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_license.php#ope | title = Linspire Licensing Information: Open Source Support, Projects & Initiativese | accessdate=2007-02-07}}</ref>

These are two Linspire business ventures, not open source support initiatives. I've moved that text here instead of deleting it because maybe it should go elsewhere in the article. Gronky 03:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

They are both free software projects initiated and supported by Linspire, so I don't really see why they shouldn't be mentioned on that basis. Whether they are important enough to bother with, I don't know. NicM 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure, but as I see it, the community didn't ask for these things and I haven't heard praise for them, or even of people using them. They seem to be a tool for some Linspire revenue stream, not a community contribution. Presenting them as a contribution without explaining that no one wants the contribution would be misleading. Gronky 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a billion things on freshmeat that few people asked for and nobody wants, the criteria for free software is the license, not popularity. They are still a contribution, although I'm quite happy to leave them out altogether, they are relatively minor pieces of software and there is already a long list of other projects Linspire have contributed something to. NicM 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Linspire is not based on Debian

Linspire's website states that Linspire is "Powered by Ubuntu". That means that Linspire is not directly based on Debian anymore.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Linspire.png

Image:Linspire.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Linspire.png

Image:Linspire.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)