15 replies to this topic

[matt]

What's the reason for getting Linspire if you have to pay for it? I mean, if you are going to pay for an OS why not get Windows or OSX?
If you are going to be using Linux anyway, why not get a free distribution of it and not have to pay for anything?

I just don't understand why someone would use Linspire. Anyone know? (Im not trying to be sarcastic, I'm genuinely wondering)

[Seal]

Because you get a Linux environment that's especially newb-friendly, and migrating-Windows-user friendly. I also assume that it also offers telephone support, something which most free nix distros can't afford. And why not Windows or OSX instead? Because neither are Linux, and both are more expensive.

Linux isn't appealing solely because it's free. Your assumption there seems to be "if it ain't free, what's the point." Well, if you only consider an OS worthwhile because it's free, it doesn't speak much of it's worth. The fact is that Linspire offers something, whatever that may be, that free alternatives (like Freespire) do not.

[levitis_leviathan]

Try the forked free version known as Freespire at www.freespire.org.

I've used both and freespire is superior. Installs easily and has better multimedia packages included and wifi drivers.


www.pa2600.com
payphonephreak.com
hackerdocs.domaindisabled.com

[n3xg3n]

I believe it is because you buy the legal rights to use certain codecs and drivers which would be technically illegal to use in other distros (mp3s, DeCSS, etc.)

i could be wrong but i believe that is the reason

[livinded]

Freespire is horrible, if you want to use Linspire use Linspire and pay for it. Otherwise you might as well use Ubuntu as it essentially is just that with some new artwork and annoyances. I know a guy who swears by Linspire and thinks it's the greatest thing ever made and even he thinks that the Freespire team did a crappy job of making the free version.

[levitis_leviathan]

Freespire is horrible, if you want to use Linspire use Linspire and pay for it. Otherwise you might as well use Ubuntu as it essentially is just that with some new artwork and annoyances. I know a guy who swears by Linspire and thinks it's the greatest thing ever made and even he thinks that the Freespire team did a crappy job of making the free version.

The performance of Linspire, like many *nixes, is somewhat hardware dependent. When I tried Linspire about 18 months ago it came installed on a bargain Balance notebook computer from WalMart. The OS didn't come with the ability to play DVDs, and Linspire's recognition of the internal WiFi card was hit and miss. I eventually dumped Linspire and loaded WinXP.

When I heard about Freespire a few months ago, I decided to repartition and give it a try as a dual boot with XP. It installed more easily than WinXP and recognized the internal WiFi immediately. The ability to play DVD's natively without paying an additional $10 licensing fee was sweet. Now I use Freespire as the OS of choice on that machine.

Freespire also has the ability to update packages using "apt-get" in addition to the crappy CNR GUI that Linspire uses.

So I guess the one's mileage may vary with Freespire depending upon your hardware.

[matt]

Linux isn't appealing solely because it's free. Your assumption there seems to be "if it ain't free, what's the point." Well, if you only consider an OS worthwhile because it's free, it doesn't speak much of it's worth. The fact is that Linspire offers something, whatever that may be, that free alternatives (like Freespire) do not.

I was thinking more along the lines of: If you are going with linux anyway, why not get a free one? There are so many distros out there, I dont see how Linspire is able to compete.

[kitche]

Linspire allows users to use certain codecs without a hassle like mp3 and otehr things, Ubuntu is close but not there yet.

[Zeph]

levitis_leviathan, you avvy scares me. Adblocked.

I haven't tried Ubuntu 7.04 but it is supposable newb friendly.

[BigBrother]

Ubuntu 7.04 is so much better than Lindows, er Linspire.
I don't see why you would want to pay for Linux. "What about MP3's?"
well then install the restricted drivers for Ubuntu. OR help make OGG and flac more common and convert your MP3's over to a higher quality audio format.
Plus with the Canonical/Linspire merger restricted codecs from Linspire get copied over to Ubuntu. That and Linspire moved from Debian as a base to Ubuntu, a Debian child, as it's source base :|.

[kitche]

huh Linspire didn't merge they are just offering CNR which Ubuntu won't support

[Seal]

I don't see why you would want to pay for Linux. "What about MP3's?"
well then install the restricted drivers for Ubuntu. OR help make OGG and flac more common and convert your MP3's over to a higher quality audio format.

Not to be the one to always pester people over symantics, but conversion from MP3 to OGG would reduce the overall sound quality.

[Alk3]

I don't see why you would want to pay for Linux. "What about MP3's?"
well then install the restricted drivers for Ubuntu. OR help make OGG and flac more common and convert your MP3's over to a higher quality audio format.

Not to be the one to always pester people over symantics, but conversion from MP3 to OGG would reduce the overall sound quality.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It is really easy to get all the codec support for Ubuntu and its free... The Ubuntu wiki has all the info you could possibly need to get this sort of thing to work.

[BigBrother]

I was thinking flac actually.
I do have MP3 codec's installed on ubuntu. That's why I dont see why you need to buy linspire.

[Bino Panda]

i read that linspire is put on wallmart pc's for less than 300 dollars

[matt]

I was thinking flac actually.
I do have MP3 codec's installed on ubuntu. That's why I dont see why you need to buy linspire.

Converting from MP3 to flac won't increase your sound quality either. It'll be MP3 quality in FLAC format.