I would like to recommend that anyone considering Lindows or any other OS not just go by what a review site says about it. Reviewers are often very biased for their own reasons and even when not we must remember that one mans poison is another mans candy. So you may even read a review where the reviewers raves about a product which may be great for him but for you it may not be to your liking. So I recommend that everyone try things themselves first hand before making a choice. Besides that is what choice is all about anyway.

Good luck to all in finding what their looking for but I personally will be hanging with Lindows for awhile.

When you have the choice between a for-profit organisation with questionable principles and one that openly commits to abide by their social contract who are you going to support?
Ok so Debian's installer is technical so donate your $100 towards the development of a new one and you'll have an OS for life, not just till you stop paying your subscription.

Simple: If not installed, no clue about what one talks about. To advice people first to read this article is just a "dirty trick" in my eyes.
Review: Just an other basher. This isn't a "review" or what ever, just plain nonsense.
LindowsOS is great, just see for your self with in mind that experience is the best teacher on earth.
I can only praise this Forest guy for being so transparant: No-one in his right mind takes such childish bashing serious. This: "Good tools are a good thing. But not Lindows." tells all.
If a reviewer cannot detect a "good tool" in LindowsOS then he simply didn't "review" at all. The fast growing popularity of the OS proves him wrong over wrong.
Some will always have a hard time with the fact that LindowsOS rocks!

The funny thing is that there is not a single detailed comment here on the facts which the reviewer has pointed out. Everyone just bashes the reviewer and claims that the person is biased for his reasons. Please someone show us the flaws in his reasoning and then continue complaining about his attitude. Certainly if someone changes his mind about Lindows after reading this review, its because he has read and disliked the facts inside it, not by blindly following the suggestions at the end of it (eg avoid using Lindows).

Ok this will be easy to show the flaws and LACK of any facts in his Opinionated commentary (Not a real review)...

First I would like to start with another link to a review for comparison between them. http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=04/01/28/2334247

Next lets take a closer look at what his OPINION is....

"I like Debian and its spin-offs. Good tools are a good thing. But not Lindows."
Now here he makes a statement that lindows is not a good tool but gives no reason in this paragraph for it at all. Therefore this is merely his opinon where he is obviously trying to set the mood for his opinionated commentray which follows. To me this is as clear as crystal and an old tactic used by those trying to subtly set a mood for others to even follow their distorted view of a subject. This actually is an insult to the intelligence of the average Lindows user in itself.

His next paragraph starts out with " It is this reviewer's opinion that Lindows has perverted and corrupted both the famed Debian foundation and reputationIt is this reviewer's opinion that Lindows has perverted and corrupted both the famed Debian foundation and reputation"
So here it is clear as stated in his own words is his opinion. It is also phrased in such a way to obviously try and convey the author's hard felt opinion by using such terms as perverted and corrupted. Clearly a low shot for perpetuating his OPINION and dislike for Lindows and is not followed by any facts used to support the use of these words in accurately and honestly describing LindowsOS. Let's tak a look at what follows these ridiculous and clearly biased descriptions shall we:

"Lindows is improperly using their Debian-based operating system to put the money-grabbing philosophy of Microsoft directly into Linux. This is being done under the guise of "Bringing Choice Back To Computers." It is this reviewer's opinion that Lindows has exploited their Debian-based OS into a bastarized version of the stable and secure Debian core.
"
Ok so here is again a clear abscense of fact where he says"
Lindows is improperly using Debian-based OS" but just how they are doing this he fails to mention. He then goes on to say however they are improperly using Debian but what he doesn't tell us is how under the premise of choice. Yes Lindows is bringing choice to desktop users world wide that part is true but the fact is they are doing it by supporting both their own products as well as Linux in general and even reccomend other linux distros to those in the forums who may not feel lindows is suitable for them. For Lindows to reccomend other distros to potential customers is clearly a fact that they are not only in it for the money as this author claims.

"a money grubbing philosophy is being used" but conveniently does not elaborate on any information as to just how he has arrived at this understanding. Quite convenient for his angle wouldn't you say that he does not list any facts that Lindows is using such a philosphy.

Now for some facts, Lindows offers terrific customer service to all users with a moeny back guarantee if for any reason someone is not satisfied Lindows promptly refunds their money and even offers suggestions on other Linux distros to try. Just check out the Lindows forums and you will see countless examples of this FACT. With this type of policy and customer service the fact remains I can't possibly see how Lindows can be associated with money grubbing. But somehow the author sure wants you to think so.

Next he makes reference to the insiders program.. " Imagine having to pay a $99.00 (USD) fee to become a "Lindows Insider." The Lindows insider program is simply a fancy name for their public side of the beta tester program. "
Now the insiders program is not just a beta tester enrollment as he would like everyone reading his nonsense to believe but it is a commitment to being part of Lindows development by supporting their efforts with 2 way communications on business direction options, beta software, new features suggestions, and specialized private forum areas for those whi belong to the program. So the insiders is so much more than a simple beta testing program as the author would like people to think. It is also not for everyone and by making it an exclusive pay option, Lindows is getting members for it who are serious in supporting the product. It is a different approach but not being done for the reasons portrayed in the commentary.

Ok so far we are wll into this commentary and I have yet to see the author produce a single fact and have seen sountless reference of it being his opinion.

Lets continue......

"there's a catch. In order to use the "Click-N-Run" (CNR) warehouse of software, you must purchase a $4.95 (USD) a month or $49.95 (USD) a year annual subscription license. In short, Lindows would appear to rely quite heavily on their CNR membership to generate a huge revenue stream. "
First off this is not a catch in any shape of the imagination but a service of convenience for new users and those who do not want to go through all the hassle of installing applications themselves or fighting dependencies issues as often happens with installing your own software. Additionally CNR is supported by software Engineers that ensure these packages install and function properly with a single user click, now how the author feels this is a giant revenue stream for Lindows is probably the most absurd statement in his commentary. Does he feel Engineers supporting this great feature should not be paid? Does he feel $4.95 a month is a giant revenue income? This is another example of no facts here and he doesn't elaborate with projected profits from this service now does he. You want to know why, it is because it is likely that not only is this not a great income generator for Lindows but is probably a break even or even loss for them to support but it makes their OS the most desireable for their users and offers choice to those who couldn't install software themselves. Also with Lindows you are free to install your own software without cnr using the same means as debian.

This next part really cracks me up..."The senior management team at Lindows seem to be looking for a fight with Microsoft at each and every turn. Not that Microsoft doesn't deserve competition, but Lindows, in particular Kevin Carmony and Michael Robertson, will go out of their way to aggravate & annoy Microsoft for no other reason than the publicity value alone. "

Now anyone following all the nonsense between MS and Lindows can see for themselves that MS has been attacking Lindows at every crossroads with alot of moeny and resources to try and hinder their growth or acceptance. These incidents are clearly posted even the letters from MS to Lindows are displayed on the Lindows web site for all to see which are facts not opinions. The reasons Lindows chooses to make public all of this is not to intentionally fight with MS but to make sure the public understand the truth and how MS is fighting choice. For these facts you can go check for your selves and see.

Ok here is some more nonsense to unsuspecting readers:
"Myth: Lindows is a Windows emulator.
This is the lie that Lindows started its company on, and even bases its name on " Lindows did not lie about supporting windows applications as in the beginning they tried integrating emulation for this and spent great sums of money developing code for this. Further they released thier efforts completely to the open source community as well but as the challenge of supporting windows apps became apparently the wrong thing to do when suporting native linux apps will more quickly support Linux growth and less dependancy of windows, lindows decided to change their direction which was a wise move and here is an example of insiders feedback as well. Lindows makes no claims to support windows appas since their change and openly discusses this with all who inquire and after Lindows invested something like a half million dollars in originally developing for emulation I think proves they were not lieing and again no facts here...

This next statement I can honestly say I had not heard about before his commentary and have no further info on it. So whether this is actually a fact or not I can not say but based on this author's track history thus far I would bet the farm on it being accurately portrayed either.
" Myth: Lindows came out with the first AOL PC."

This next statement is clearly known that Lindows at the time had every intent of producing LOS for the tablet but during development found it difficult to support the hardware available properly and opted not to produce this version until such time it would be of the highest compatability. For this decision I applaud them for waiting as I am sure most who purchase such devices from companies with lessor integrity and higher customer aggrevation in getting things to work properly.
"Myth: The LindowsOS Tablet PC.
Michael's Minutes dated November 12, 2002 is entitled, "Tablet PCs & LindowsOS; Expanding LindowsOS Reach to New Platforms." "

his next part is not true either and at one time there was an early version of Lindows where root was default but has not been like that for many releases now and gives the user the option of how they want to run their system This is all about choice and they even explain this when configuring it for the first time. CNR works with non root accounts as well. Kevin and Lindows has made this quite clear to everyone incuding newbies and the terrific forums reflect this info for all to see. Again no facts here...
" Myth: Lindows doesn't run as root by default.
In a recent interview that appeared in DesktopOS.com on January 22, 2004, Kevin Carmony, President of Lindows.com, attempted to dispel some of the myths about Lindows. Regarding the user being forced to run as 'root,' Carmony responded with, "This was only the case in our very first "Sneak Preview" two years ago. Ever since that time, during install, the user is given the chance set up Admin AND User accounts. This is also the case when a user starts a new LindowsOS computer for the first time." LindowsOS 4.0 STILL defaults to the user running as 'root.' Even setting an administrator password is optional during the LindowsOS installation!
Click-N-Run is started for each user account, and a non-root user is asked to supply the Administrative Password to start Click-N-Run at every login.
"

Here is an example of the author twisting the staement out of context to support his opinions. This statement talks about the choice for linux because Lindows is a linux distro. Duh! Just like frosted flakes are a cereal you could make a statement saying that a ceral is being banned if for some reason frosted flakes were banned somewhere. Simply stupid for the author to even try and use this nonsense statement.
" Myth: Lindows is the only choice for Desktop Linux (in the Netherlands in this example)
"

Now this part the author says "One truth: Lindows has a relationship with SCO. Lindows signed an agreement with SCO dating from 2001 (then Caldera) which remains in effect, according to Michael Robertson himself. "We're in an unique situation because of our pre-existing relationship with SCO," said Michael Robertson, chief executive officer of Lindows.com. ".
Then he goes on to say they are proud of it? What is this supposed to imply? I think it is clear the reason MR of Lindows made this statement was due to all of the recent law suits from SCO against other linux distributions and the fact it may slow new people from trying linux for fear of being sued by SCO. By Lindows clarifying their existing agreement with SCO simply eliminates any potential new users from not trying Lindows for fear of this. This is actually funny that the author even put this in there.

Now here comes my favorite biased to the max with no sugar on top staement from this less than factual commentary:
"My final opinions on Lindows? Stay AWAY from this company. It's an Edsel, driven by a lying driver who signs deals with the devil.
"
Lol! Notice how he prefixes this statment with My final opinion? ok that part is a fact then but an edsel with a driver making a deal with the devil? Lol! This statement in itself explemifies without a doubt the authors bias towards lindows and is simply put ridiculous. In fact the only value this statment my have would be possibly if it were used as a plot in a hollywood movie thriller. I mean come one, does this author think this will really frighten people from using Lindows? When I read this part I actually felt pity for this author.

He tries to bolster his above fear factor statement with yet another implying lindows is doing something less than legal with "It troubles me that the FTC has yet to investigate Lindows.com for deceptive business practices and false advertising as outlined in this writing. " Yet more propoganda in trying to scare potential Lindows users from trying the product by making them think Lindows could be investigated. The reality of this is if anyone is commiting a crime here it is this author with his biased and twisted use of information with the sole purpose of trying to steer potential Lindows users from trying a truly great product. I hope he is ahamed of himself for this and also realizes most people are simply not this gullable to believe such nonsense.

So In closing I hope this info helps any confusion as to why so many are calling this ridiculous author on his biased commentary and possibly he may reconsider his unethical use of commentaries in trying to beat down products and companies he happens to not care for. I would have had some respect for him had he just posted that he hated Lindows for whatever reasons and that he would like to see other not use it because he hates it plain and simple.

There are personal opinions included in this review as well as facts, but it sure isn't an 'opinionated commentary'. At least thats not what I call an article with a dozen of relevant links inside. And since you're very interested in facts, there's no fact which proves your definition of 'reviewing' to be the true one.

From Taylor's article:

While I may not agree with everything he's stated in this specific review, I don't see anything wrong with this method.

The part regarding the so called 'Lindows Insider' was the most relevant point in the article. And your reply made it even worse. A person who involves in the activities you mentioned (aside from beta testing) is contributing to the project and deserves credit and honor, if not get paid. However, it seems to be the exact opposite way at Lindows.com.

(By the way, note that I'm not anti-Lindows. My last post was only for the sake of what's stated in it.)

It appears I didn't get across the point I was ultimately trying to make in my reply which is the fact that people should NOT heed any advice of a single review alone. Especially since regardless of what you think, it was clearly and without a doubt anti-lindows from the first word he typed. This is simply a case of biased opinions and a review is done in such a way that products are either tested or gauged again some set of parameters and the results are then presented. Usually in graphs, charts, etc. This however is instead purely what would be considered a commentary.

Whether or not you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with my commnets does not change the fact that people should be weary of opinionated commentaries and try things for themselves or ask others they know their opinons as well. It is people such as this author who cause mis-information that ultimately harms Linux in general by slowing down its popularity regardless of who the distro is from.

In closing I will say this to you, it is pointless to go back and forth on such matters where the only clear value in doing so is to make others aware of biased reviews. I feel I have at least allowed for potential users to question this commentary enough to at least seek out more info from other sources as well before making a decision and if you think my comments as that is what they were and NOT A REVIEW, were making things worse than I'm sorry you obviously didn't get my point and in the end that is really only your opinion.

Anyway good luck to you and everyone else in seeking out your prefered distro but all should consider researching out on their own to learn the true story of LindowsOS and the company behind it.

You actually read one's post before replying to him, don't you?

Here is an excellent response to Forrest Taylor's “A Thoroughly Different Review of Lindows”

He also address the AOL PC myth.

You can't be serious.... the author does not even understand Linux security model. It seems that even people at Lindows.com understand the root issue and are planning to fix it in future releases of Lindows, but this guy tries to justify the issue for the sake of bashing Taylor.

I've participating in several user vs. root threads on the Lindows Forums. I'd have to say that by and large those who chose not to use a user account regularly still understand the security model just fine, they just ignore it for the sake of their own convience.

Besides, simply because you disagrees with him over the user vs. root issue doesn't invalidate the rest of his arguments.

I know that for some the user account issue is a sacred cow that cannot be violated, but many do. Its their choice.