Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Dec 2005 22:28 UTC
Linux "Linux works. This is a very matter-of-fact statement, but it is one many people (myself included) make every day when they boot up their computers. It is not a perfect product, it would not be sensible to expect something as complex as an operating system to be flawless, but fact remains that Linux does work. On the software side of things the open source community has done a very good job of making this clear, but the other half of computing, hardware, this movement has not been as successful. Every day Linux users encounter driver and compatibility issues which Windows users have not had to deal with for years."
Order by: Score:
i'll agree.. partially
by flanque on Fri 16th Dec 2005 22:48 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

on the desktop it's still not easy enough. average folks get confused and rightfully ask why they cannot just plug it in and have it work with minimal fuss.

on the server side, i think i will agree with caution.

Reply Score: 1

RE: i'll agree.. partially
by Celerate on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:06 UTC in reply to "i'll agree.. partially"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I hold the hardware manufacturers responsible to a degree because they disregard standards in order to get a competitive edge, they don't disclose the information needed to write drivers, and they only write drivers for one OS.

Microsoft doesn't have to write it's own drivers, it has hardware companies groveling at it's feet to get their own drivers certified for money. The hardware manufacturers are idiotic sometimes, they say they won't write drivers for other operating systems until those other operating systems have more users, but those other operating systems won't get a lot more users until there are drivers. A real chicken and egg problem and the hardware companies cannot be so stupid as to be unable to see that.

By other operating systems I'm not only reffering Linux as one person on this site is so apt to claim, but also every other non-Microsoft operating system including Mac OS X and the BSD family of operating systems.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: i'll agree.. partially
by Joe User on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: i'll agree.. partially"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree with you. Most hardware manufacturers, and software giants such as the notorious Adobe/Macromedia have bad karma. I wouldn't cry if they suffer from fierce open-source competition in the future.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: i'll agree.. partially
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE: i'll agree.. partially"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

There are a number of problems with supporting fringe OSes such as Linux, and they go deeper than what you've outlined.

First of all, the monetary investment required to do driver development is enormous. Hardware manufacturers are attempting to run a business. When the monetary return is less than the investment, this is called bad business. In the real world, how many desktop Linux users are there out there? 1%? 2% at the most? The monetary investment required to develop drivers for a 1-2% user base is not worth it -- because even then it's not guaranteed that that userbase will buy your hardware.

Second, hardware manufacturers do not want to support an operating system that will break their drivers every few releases. The reality of things is that if you want to see any kind of support for a main-stream piece of hardware from a large company, you'll get it in the form of a binary driver. GPL zealots need not apply. Why can't I run a binary module from Linux 2.4.8 on 2.4.30? How many breakages occured from .8 to .30? I don't even want to know. Then there's the problem of distributions and each one having a different way of doing things -- file locations, configuration files, software versions ...

Third, even if the OS was stable development-wise, and the businesses wouldn't mind losing some money, what kind of demand is there really for most of the hardware out there to run on Linux? Think of some pro-level hardware like audio cards -- there is no real Linux alternative for pro audio recording in terms of software, so why support the hardware?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: i'll agree.. partially
by Celerate on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i'll agree.. partially"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"First of all, the monetary investment required to do driver development is enormous. Hardware manufacturers are attempting to run a business. When the monetary return is less than the investment, this is called bad business."

Open source drivers are frequently developed by developers in their free time without any recompense. If even under a NDA companies would let some of those programmers see what they needed to write the drivers then it would get done for little to no cost.

"Second, hardware manufacturers do not want to support an operating system that will break their drivers every few releases."

Ok, fair enough. although if the companies did as I mentioned above I'm sure the developers would update the drivers as needed, again at little to no cost to the hardware company.

"Why can't I run a binary module from Linux 2.4.8 on 2.4.30?"

Don't ask me, although the real question is what hardware do you have that needs you to use a special kernel module that doesn't come with the Linux kernel. And if there is an open source driver it should be available through the people who make your distribution. They can't always be bleeding edge, an unstable product that supports a lot of hardware (windows? ;-) ) isn't as desirable to the majority of existing Linux users as a product that is rock solid with only slightly older hardware support. And if hardware manufacturers would only stick to standards one driver could work for several devices much like USB jumpdrive drivers work for several makes and models.

"Third, even if the OS was stable development-wise, and the businesses wouldn't mind losing some money, what kind of demand is there really for most of the hardware out there to run on Linux? Think of some pro-level hardware like audio cards -- there is no real Linux alternative for pro audio recording in terms of software, so why support the hardware?"

Actually I know of a few cases where people use software like Audacity, Inkscape, The Gimp, Scribus, OpenOffice.org and KDevelop in Linux to produce professional products. That software may not always have all the features of proprietary software but it also comes at no more than the cost of bandwidth and a blank CD-R. As far as hardware support goes the thing is that Microsoft has OEM hardware vendors locked in, and since MS is still keeping the mass market dependent we really won't know how much hardware companies really want to support Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: i'll agree.. partially
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: i'll agree.. partially"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

> Open source drivers are frequently developed by developers in their free time without any recompense. If even under a NDA companies would let some of those programmers see what they needed to write the drivers then it would get done for little to no cost.

Of what use is an NDA if the final work were to be released to the public anyway? I don't see the logic in this.

> Ok, fair enough. although if the companies did as I mentioned above I'm sure the developers would update the drivers as needed, again at little to no cost to the hardware company.

Well why not quit making the developers re-invent the wheel every 6 months and instead just standardize the kernel driver APIs?

> Don't ask me, although the real question is what hardware do you have that needs you to use a special kernel module that doesn't come with the Linux kernel.

ATI video card, NVIDIA video card, WiFi cards, some sound cards ...

> They can't always be bleeding edge, an unstable product that supports a lot of hardware (windows? ;-) ) isn't as desirable to the majority of existing Linux users as a product that is rock solid with only slightly older hardware support.

My experience says the opposite. Windows has been 100% stable for me for the last 3 years, whereas I've had KDE/GNOME/some applet/some utility crash shortly after installation of a mainstream Linux distro.

> And if hardware manufacturers would only stick to standards one driver could work for several devices much like USB jumpdrive drivers work for several makes and models.

Easier said than done. If the hardware uses a different chip/chipset/architecture, then the driver simply cannot be reused. Drivers *do* follow a standard -- look at Windows. Windows expects its network drivers, audio drivers, video drivers, etc. to all be built in a certain fashion. This is the only way it *can* work if the OS is to get off the ground. Linux is the one at fault here. The reason USB drives work with one common driver is because they all follow one common specification -- USB mass storage. That's a bit different from video cards -- you have so many different architectures and capabilities that creating a "3D acceleration specification" would be impossible.

> Actually I know of a few cases where people use software like Audacity, Inkscape, The Gimp, Scribus, OpenOffice.org and KDevelop in Linux to produce professional products. That software may not always have all the features of proprietary software but it also comes at no more than the cost of bandwidth and a blank CD-R.

Any professional working with audio, video, or images is not worth his words if he refuses to shell out the money for a professional package. Most professionals have absolutely no problems affording commercial packages, so why settle for software that usually still feels like it's in development? I've been to Global TV's studio a great many times, and they use highly-commercial, specialized software for everything -- from logo design, to mixing, to real-time video effects. Open-source packages simply do not match the capabilities or reliability that organizations like this need.

> As far as hardware support goes the thing is that Microsoft has OEM hardware vendors locked in ...

Microsoft is locking no one in. ATI, NVIDIA, Realtek, SiS, Intel, Matrox, Broadcom, Creative, etc. are all free to develop drivers for any OS that they want to. Don't try to blame this all on Microsoft.

> and since MS is still keeping the mass market dependent we really won't know how much hardware companies really want to support Linux.

How is MS keeping the mass market dependant? Any Joe User can switch to an alternative operating system -- he has the choice after all, doesn't he? The problem is that the choices are not compelling enough to warrant their use. What would Joe User gain from switching to Linux? Seriously? Nothing. He'd probably lose a lot, though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: i'll agree.. partially
by anda_skoa on Sat 17th Dec 2005 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: i'll agree.. partially"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Of what use is an NDA if the final work were to be released to the public anyway?

Obviously nothing covered by the NDA will be released. Doesn't mean you can't have an up-to-date driver, the company has just oursourced development and maintainence

Well why not quit making the developers re-invent the wheel every 6 months and instead just standardize the kernel driver APIs?

I think the changing API is just a comfortable excuse. There are lots of device categories that do not need kernel level drivers but need only access to stable user space APIs, for example printers and scanners.

Yet there are still drivers missing for those devices.

That's a bit different from video cards -- you have so many different architectures and capabilities that creating a "3D acceleration specification" would be impossible

I'd say it is not only possible but already available. They are called OpenGL and Direct3D and most video card drivers implement both.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: i'll agree.. partially
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: i'll agree.. partially"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, but OpenGL/Direct3D are only one part of the whole rendering chain, and not the part I was talking about.

Without looking at references, this is more or less how it happens: (Game --> instructs OpenGL/Direct3D --> OpenGL/Direct3D do geometry setup, etc. --> OpenGL/Direct3D talk to video driver --> Video driver takes OpenGL/Direct3D information, processes it, optimizes it, creates a packet of work for the video card) --> Packet travels over AGP/PCI-e bus --> Video card receives packet --> Video card does the complex job of rendering.

Everything in ( ) is done on the CPU. It's that video driver talking to the video card that is difficult. OGL/D3D are standardized, but everything past that point is proprietary, simply because the driver complements the hardware just as much as the transistors complement the GPU.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: i'll agree.. partially
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i'll agree.. partially"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"there is no real Linux alternative for pro audio recording in terms of software, so why support the hardware?"

There are. Sorry, you just don't know.
You feign interest in Linux-realted threads, but you are just a troll with too much free time. And no you don't know how to use this time wisely unless you are paid.

cheers

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: i'll agree.. partially
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: i'll agree.. partially"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah? Two of my friends who are in the business disagree.

Care to give us a name or two, or just allude to the existence of these solutions?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: i'll agree.. partially
by John Nilsson on Sat 17th Dec 2005 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i'll agree.. partially"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all, the monetary investment required to do driver development is enormous. Hardware manufacturers are attempting to run a business. When the monetary return is less than the investment, this is called bad business. In the real world, how many desktop Linux users are there out there? 1%? 2% at the most? The monetary investment required to develop drivers for a 1-2% user base is not worth it -- because even then it's not guaranteed that that userbase will buy your hardware.

I was going to refute that figure. But I did some analysis on various browser statistics and arived at a figure of _possible_ linux users somwhere around 3% so it looks like you are correct.

But 3% of the global websurfing user market isn't by any measure small!


My analysis:
============
Stats from http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/November/browser.php
weighted with numbers pulled out of my arse. I assume that some of the IE reports are faked and I aim for the ceiling of possible Linux users, not probable linux users.

Browser - Total - Percent - My weight - Result
MSIE x.x - 68925838 - 87,51% - 1% - 0,88%
FireFox - 6158875 - 7,82% - 10% - 0,78%
Safari - 1448061 - 1,84% - 0% - 0,00%
Other - 813121 - 1,03% - 100% - 1,03%
Opera x.x - 545891 - 0,69% - 10% - 0,07%
Netscape x.x - 487277 - 0,62% - 1% - 0,01%
Netscape comp. - 381814 - 0,48% - 100% - 0,48%

Reply Score: 1

RE: i'll agree.. partially
by dylansmrjones on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:34 UTC in reply to "i'll agree.. partially"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, it depends on how lucky you are.

Linux is as easy as it should be, when drivers work. The problem arrises when they don't.

Personally it's not a problem for me. I just plug it in and it works - and I had to do nothing for this to work. With one exception... My webcam. That one won't work for me.

However, the problem isn't really all that Linux-specific. It's not a hard job to find peripherals that won't work with Windows either. I've had quite a few issues with laptops incapable of recognizing webcams and usb-sticks - without any way to solve it.

And on my former PC, my Riva TNT card wouldn't work in Windows, no matter what. Only in DOS and Linux. Apparently this was a known problem with the CPU+mobo combination, and no fix for it.

Linux does however suffer more from it than Windows, and there are two possible solutions:

1) Reengineering (open source solution)
2) Costumerpressure on companies (to come up with proper closed source solution).

But to be honest, the problem isn't that big.
Check out forums for 3D Games, and see how many persons having trouble with Windows and drivers, and you can see it's not that different from the issues known from Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: i'll agree.. partially
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 20:45 UTC in reply to "i'll agree.. partially"
Anonymous Member since:
---

on the desktop it's still not easy enough. average folks get confused and rightfully ask why they cannot just plug it in and have it work with minimal fuss.

all my hardware works without a hassle in linux. if you don't use compatible hardware, what do you expect?
i have hardware that won't work in windows anymore, but it still does in linux, there is also new hardware available which works on linux only, i could go and complain by saying it doesn't work on windows!
i guess the mac has the same problem, i've seen things with only windows drivers, and no way to work on linux so the chance that it would work on a mac is pretty small.
i have noticed that unknown-low price hardware manufactures sometimes put a 'works on linux' sticker on their boxes. if they can do that, why don't the high profile-well known-more expensive brands put that on their box?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: i'll agree.. partially
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE: i'll agree.. partially"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"if you don't use compatible hardware, what do you expect?"

Again, the old "It's not my fault you didn't check the HCL before buying hardware argument." It's worn out, tired, and irrelavent. Because the average user expects to walk into Best Buy or Circuit City, buy something off the shelf, come home, plug it in, and have it work, maybe after following a few simple instructions included with the product.

The simple fact is that things are rarely this simple in Linux. It may not work at all, or it may only work after hunting around on the Internet for a driver, which may only be avalable in source code and require manual compiling, which may then require learning about modprobe and config files, and so on. As a general rule, adding new hardware is more complicated in Linux than Windows.

"there is also new hardware available which works on linux only,"

Other than the Asterisk PBX hardware, I know of no new hardware that only works on Linux. And Asterisk PBX is hardly a desktop user application... If you can think of a single piece of new deskop hardware that only works with Linux, please let me know what it is. I venture to say it does not exist.

"if they can do that, why don't the high profile-well known-more expensive brands put that on their box?"

Because they don't care about a marketshare as small as Linux. It literally probably costs them more to buy the stickers and put them on the box then they would actually make in sales to Linux using customers.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

ALSA works like a charm with just about everything.

XOrg has driver snapshots for all the x86 onboard video stuff except SiS.

There are good proprietary driverse for nVidia cards.

The only big problems are with ATI cards, and the XOrg crew is working hard on that one.

Reply Score: 1

Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"ALSA works like a charm with just about everything."

Well, until you want to play two sound sources at the same time--something Windows handles with ease, but ALSA can't seem to do at all unless you are running an external sound daemon that you can send it all through.

> The only big problems are with ATI cards, and
> the XOrg crew is working hard on that one.

Not exactly. They don't have support for the Intel 855 chipset, which is a very common embedded chipset in laptops. Intel does produce 855 drivers, but they don't provide binaries, and you have to build them from source. Which last time I did it I found to be a hassle (needs very up to date kernel sources and such).

and even once you have the Intel 855 driver installed, you won't get widescreen 1280x800 support because of a bug in the Linux driver from Intel. So then you need install a third party patch which you have to load at each system boot.

ATI cards are definately not the only cards that XOrg has issues with.

Reply Score: 2

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

"Well, until you want to play two sound sources at the same time--something Windows handles with ease, but ALSA can't seem to do at all unless you are running an external sound daemon that you can send it all through."

ALSA is a sound architecture, it provides driver-level support for sound devices. It actually makes sense to develop and release the userland sound mixer as a separate entity. Both major DE's come with mixing solutions, and with technologies like GStreamer becoming more mature (and championed by both major DE's), the state of Linux Desktop sound is strong.

"Not exactly. They don't have support for the Intel 855 chipset, which is a very common embedded chipset in laptops. Intel does produce 855 drivers, but they don't provide binaries, and you have to build them from source. Which last time I did it I found to be a hassle (needs very up to date kernel sources and such).

and even once you have the Intel 855 driver installed, you won't get widescreen 1280x800 support because of a bug in the Linux driver from Intel. So then you need install a third party patch which you have to load at each system boot."

Dude, you're describing a problem that existed for a few versions of the Linux kernel more than a year and a half ago. I remember using the patch you speak of, which basically fixed the way the kernel reported the shared memory address ranges to XFree86 (yes, Xorg didn't really exist back then). I can't remember exactly when this was fixed, but I'd like to say ~2.6.5 or so. Centrino laptops were in their first generation, 1.3-1.5GHz.

Reply Score: 1

Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"ALSA is a sound architecture, it provides driver-level support for sound devices. It actually makes sense to develop and release the userland sound mixer as a separate entity. Both major DE's come with mixing solutions,"

Sure. Which introduces another problem. The two sound mixers included with the two major DEs, are not compatible with each other! That's right, they aren't! And guess what that means? Some programs only work under one or the other.

"Dude, you're describing a problem that existed for a few versions of the Linux kernel more than a year and a half ago. I remember using the patch you speak of,"

The problem still exists. I am running the latest version of the kernel (2.6.14), and no, it has not been fixed.

Edited 2005-12-17 17:34

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Not only you have to run a hack in order to make widescreen mode work properly, this driver has huge issues with getting out of suspend mode. Another pathetic driver from Intel is ipw2200. It is very unstable, the firmware always crashes. The latest driver realese doesn't work at all, it has huge performance problems making your computer useless. Linux is very good platform if you have a well tested drivers for your hardware. Hardware providers usually don't bother with Linux at all, which is very sad. That's why I have my PowerBook handy all the time.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

No it does not. Alsa sucks if you have more audio devices than one. It also doesn't support always full duplex by default (most usually it does though) and it doesn't have the software mixing enabled. Everything blocks the device which is horrible for most of the users.

Furthermore there's a lot of devices (non-audio and audio alike) that simply are not well supported. They would if kernel had stable ABIs but the fundamentalists are against it, naturally.

Lots of devices just plain fail with Linux. When they work often you don't have good enough configuration tools for the Average Joe. Trying to get things such as WPA2 with 802.1x working can be quite a pain with Linux for Average User.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

At the ATI website there is a "workstation" section and the high end video cards are stated to work with linux.
I called the canadian phone number(workstation) and the guy who answered said that they were a different division from the gamer section.
SOOO is it all sweetness and light if one uses one of these cards with linux?

Reply Score: 0

Chicken or the Egg
by Anonymous on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is largely a Chicken or the Egg problem. If there is no demand for Linux drivers, why would companies bother making them? If there is limited driver support, Linux is less likely to garner significant market share. Its not an easy problem; it is most likely the most significant obstacle Linux has to overcome.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Chicken or the Egg
by RGCook on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:24 UTC in reply to "Chicken or the Egg"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

Great article. Well written and logically assembled. I agree with Anonymous that this is a chicken and egg problem. The problem is f(time) though. Meaning, as feature sets mature (OS and application-wise), Linux will "catch-up" to its Windows-based equivalents and then the option for Linux on the desktop will be realized.

To wit:
- OO.o is rapidly equalling MS Office
- KDE 3.5 already kicks XP GUI and 4 will be Vista comparable

Linux will then fight its war on the multimedia/gaming front. That is the phase 2 fight.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Chicken or the Egg
by DigitalAxis on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Chicken or the Egg"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

I don't know about OO.o any more. I can't make graphs in Calc with columns representing X and Y axes like I can in Excel, Impress won't even open complex Powerpoint presentations (system hangs), and I had a hell of a time using the text color tool in Writer.

I'll admit, I don't recall trying any of those in OO.o 1.1.4, but even if things did get better they're still bad.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Chicken or the Egg
by RGCook on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chicken or the Egg"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

OO has undergone massive restructuing with the ODF format. There are a lot of bugs to be ironed out. Hang in there. I am.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Chicken or the Egg
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chicken or the Egg"
Anonymous Member since:
---


I don't know about OO.o any more. I can't make graphs in Calc with columns representing X and Y axes like I can in Excel, Impress won't even open complex Powerpoint presentations (system hangs), and I had a hell of a time using the text color tool in Writer.


I haven't even used calc except for calculations, but just for fun I just created an XY chart. No different that Word. I highlighed the series, selected insert chart, then chose XY chart (second row, second column).

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Chicken or the Egg
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Chicken or the Egg"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Impress won't even open complex Powerpoint presentations (system hangs)"

Powerpoint won't open even simple Impress presentations.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Chicken or the Egg
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Chicken or the Egg"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Powerpoint won't open even simple Impress presentations."

But it doesn't have too. When you are the most widely used office software in the industry by quite a wide margin, you can afford the luxery of not supporting formats from competing products. They have to support your format instead, if they want to be usable by most people who have to share documents with people using the most popular software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Chicken or the Egg
by abraxas on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chicken or the Egg"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Well version 2.0 is out now, so it's a totally different ballgame now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Chicken or the Egg
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Chicken or the Egg"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a little bit of a stupid comment to make ... KDE 4 will be Vista-comparable? Either you have a lot to learn about Vista, or a lot to learn about KDE 4 -- or both.

If KDE 4 is to be comparable to Vista, the improvements have to be made all across the board -- and that means the kernel, X, and the DE, not just the DE.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Chicken or the Egg
by RGCook on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chicken or the Egg"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

Look Mr. Poo, the OS's are different, no question, so a direct comparison is admittedly invalid. However, relative to the capabilities, UI improvements and underlying technology, I believe from what I have read and reviewed online, that KDE 4 will *in fact* be comparable to Vista in many ways.

I think you contradict your own point when you say that "improvement have to be made all across the board..." because improvements *ARE* being made all across the board. Surely you noticed the development pace of the Linux kernel, X and the core DE's (gnome and kde in particular) relative to Vista? An argument could be made that Linux is moving at a very strong rate indeed. Certainly comparable, arguably faster.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Chicken or the Egg
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Chicken or the Egg"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

That's all fine and good that we've got all of these experimental technologies on Linux -- but 90% of them end up nowhere, and 10% of them end up in mainstream distros about 2 years after their inception.

Where's the equivalent of GPU-accelerated DEs on Linux? Until they're there, Vista is automatically 3-5 years ahead.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Chicken or the Egg
by SlackerJack on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Chicken or the Egg"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

And you expect some part time hacks to put together something so complicated, how long did it take microsoft to do Aero?, two years?

I expect something to be 3-5 years ahead when I pay 100-200 for. I get my Linux for free and it works just as good as Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Chicken or the Egg
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Chicken or the Egg"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

No, I don't ... and neither do you. That's good. It shows that you have a realistic sense of what is humanly possible given limited resources and limited hardware manufacturer support.

It's the Linux zealots that I hate, with their "OMG Vista sucks Linux is already so ahead."

Though I have to politely disagree with your last comment. I find that XP works much better for me in all cases than Linux. OS X ... well, that's another story. There's a reason I am now a complete Mac guy. :-P

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Chicken or the Egg
by RGCook on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Chicken or the Egg"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

While I sense from your tone (and comment rating) you like to stir the pot for the pot's sake, you do make valid points and deserve some response.

I thought I previously pointed out in my first response that multimedia and gaming were the next front? Point ceded that Linux is behind XP/Vista on these fronts.

I find it curious that you only say 3-5 yrs behind. At the onset of 2005, some pundits were generalizing that Linux is roughly 10 years behind Windows. Granted a generalization to be sure, but the strides made in 2005 are nothing short of exceptional.

Please maintain your offensive nature. It makes for good debate. But base it on facts, not subjective "you think" and try to keep the name calling down - if you can! I am sensitive to being called stupid. I am laboring through another .NET in 24 hours book this evening and I don't need any reminders.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Chicken or the Egg
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Chicken or the Egg"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Hehe, granted. I'm not too big a fan of .NET yet. :-P

Anyway, the reason I say 3-5 years is because they've made quick work of modular X.Org. That ought to speed things along to bring it to similar capabilities, but it will still be some time before the new capabilities are standardized and stabilized. If Linux had stayed with the glacial XFree86 I would have said a decade.

Still, there's more to the entire UI experience than just fancy eye candy ... there are other places where it could be improved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Chicken or the Egg
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Chicken or the Egg"
Anonymous Member since:
---

To wit:
- OO.o is rapidly equalling MS Office
- KDE 3.5 already kicks XP GUI and 4 will be Vista comparable


And it still won't run Half-Life 2...

Reply Score: 0

I agree but
by Joe User on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:11 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Not only hardware support is poor. There is a lot of good software that is not available to Linux. Photoshop for instance has no equivalent on Linux (on Windows neither).

Now, hardware lack of support is a bad thing because basically if you buy cheap hardware, Linux won't support it. You'll have to buy good/expensive hardware to be sure it's gonna work out of the box.

So, Linux's number one benefit of being free of charge isn't valid anymore if you need to buy expensive hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I agree but
by dylansmrjones on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:17 UTC in reply to "I agree but "
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Now, hardware lack of support is a bad thing because basically if you buy cheap hardware, Linux won't support it. You'll have to buy good/expensive hardware to be sure it's gonna work out of the box.

This is bull. My graphic card and my sound card works flawlessly and none of those were expensive at the time they were bought.

My whole system is pretty much discount (with certain exceptions - which have nothing to do with any OS) and works flawlessly with Linux, with the one exception of my webcam, which I haven't been able to use yet (not that I've tried to fix it - just concluded it didn't work yet, and left it as such).

You DO NOT have to buy good/expensive hardware to make it work. Linux supports a very wide range of hardware on most platforms.

If you're hardware doesn't work on linux you've been hit by bad luck. Usually it just works. The same is true for Windows and peripherals, and Mac OS X and peripherals. Smaller OS'es however, can give the user a different experience, but that is to be expected.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I agree but
by hraq on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE: I agree but "
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

you are talking about you experience with one system which is insufficient to reflect the real life issues rising from these cheap hardware; You have to be a technician to understand this, I am sorry!

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: I agree but
by dylansmrjones on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I agree but "
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I've had linux running on more than one system. And have had more than one lower cost system (and a couple high cost system - for the PC platform that is).

And I understand more about this than you apparently think.

The fact is that most people don't have issues with the mainstream devices. People usually don't have problems with cheap NVidia cards or cheap Soundblaster like cards.

The problems usually pops up with more exotic hardware.

There are other problems with cheap hardware though. And these aren't restricted to Linux only, but also other OS'es trying to use these devices.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I agree but
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:02 UTC in reply to "I agree but "
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, this is not quite true. I was able to buy a PC pre-loaded with Xandros from Microtel for ~$350 (monitor not included). This included an 80GB hard drive, a DVD-RW, 256mb RAM, speakers, and a floppy drive (which I do occasionally still need). Everything worked just fine. I replaced Xandros with Zenwalk, and everything still works fine. Not so expensive, really.

Reply Score: 0

Pleasantly Surprised
by Anonymous on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As a user of both Windows and Linux, I must admit my stronger desires for Linux. However, as long as my wife and I share a computer, Windows will remain on the system. In all honesty, Windows works better with hardware, although it recently has problems with waking up from sleep on my laptop. This is a recent problem that I never experienced until a few months ago, and I don't have virus software system for what it is worth. I have had greater problems with Mepis not acting as I would like, though these problems are minor in nature. But the point of this post is this; Mepis has far exceeded my expectations. The most surprising part was the way wireless worked without a problem. I should also note that I do not run the most up to date version of Mepis, which is based on Debian, which is not as up to date as say Ubuntu or Arch. I think these stories really lead people to believe that Linux is not ready for the desktop. In certain cases it is, but there is a learning curve. If you are interested in Linux, I would recommend that you do as I do, and dual boot. Linux is not Windows, but you might learn to prefer it one day.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pleasantly Surprised
by Joe User on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:21 UTC in reply to "Pleasantly Surprised"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

However, as long as my wife and I share a computer, Windows will remain on the system.

Same problem here. When the computer is booted with Mandrake, my wife and my 2 kids don't want to use it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pleasantly Surprised
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Pleasantly Surprised"
Anonymous Member since:
---

well, as long as you are the sole admininstrator it's not really their decision..

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Pleasantly Surprised
by Emerson on Sat 17th Dec 2005 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Pleasantly Surprised"
Emerson Member since:
2005-09-19

Exact opposite here. I get less glares for leaving the toilet seat up than I do if she wakes to find I'd booted into windows for some reason and then didn't have the courtesy of loading Linux up again before heading off to bed.

Reply Score: 1

What needs to be done
by Anonymous on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

5 things that need to happen to Linux before it can take a meaningful portion of Microsoft's monopoly:

1.Increase hardware compatibility
2.Ability to install and run Windows software
3.Have universal double click software install files
4.No need for the user to use the command line

When all or most of these things are done Linux use will boom and not until then.

Reply Score: 0

RE: What needs to be done
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 12:04 UTC in reply to "What needs to be done"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ok... an answer to u and many similar questions..
Yes there is problems with some hardware, but so is the Windows.(most of ppl say there is more drivers for win, i do agree to some extent. Even that in the last year I had many examples to the contrary).

>>> PLEASE can anyone tell me IS there somethnig comparable to KNOPPIX in windows land <<<

O'gosh ....HOW much easier do u want it to be ??

Is Windows easier to start working...NO NO NO.
Joe average do not know how to install Office or whatever else, even if it is Next>>Next>>Next..
With Knoppix it just goes to OO icon and starts it...
How it can be easier ?

It does detect 95% of the things on all my tries with different computers, in some cases even my Windows friends are surprised, and guess what u do not have to install mainboard,graphics and other dirvers it just works, then u do not have to setup firewall,antivirus and do not have to go and dload Mozilla it is there.

With the latest Knoppix 4.0 DVD u have all no need of "3.universal double click software install". Or if want u can get "universal one click soft-install" (one < double ;) )

http://klik.atekon.de/

The joe average do not have to do anything even on windows it ask his friends or support company, if something goes wrong.
and so on .. and so on....

WINDOWS easy of use is just the common DILUSION.

To all windows-basher let u know that I used windows many,many years before I ever saw linux, so I know it....probbaly much better than many of u ;)

PS. one my friend just brought his first computer, I hate to go every day for his next problem with windows.. it has only MS Office and bsplayer (winamp already uninstalled, 'cause it crashed) and it is not yet connected to the intrnet !!!!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: What needs to be done
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: What needs to be done"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> WINDOWS easy of use is just the common DILUSION.

The simple reality is that Windows is easier to use than Linux for most users, and that most users are less likely to run into issues with hardware not working, or requiring a lot of messing around to get it to work, then they are on Linux.

That's the simple reality. I'm sorry. But it is. And as long as the Linux community continues to deny it, and pretend that nothing is wrong, Linux will NEVER be able to compete with Windows on the desktop. Because The Linux community would rather stick its head in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong, then fix the problems that are so glaringly obviously there.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What needs to be done
by abraxas on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:26 UTC in reply to "What needs to be done"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

5 things that need to happen to Linux before it can take a meaningful portion of Microsoft's monopoly:

1.Increase hardware compatibility
2.Ability to install and run Windows software
3.Have universal double click software install files
4.No need for the user to use the command line

When all or most of these things are done Linux use will boom and not until then.


1. I've heard comments like this for years now. What exactly are the hardware compatibility issues you speak of? Be more specific. Most computers run fine with Linux. I would say the only issues are sound and peripherals. I wish companies that built things like mp3 players and other gadgets would just use java for their interfacing applications. That would solve the problem on Linux and other operating systems.

2. The ability to run Windows software on Linux has been here for a while. You can run most games and a lot of applications like photoshop. I don't think this is really necessary though. Build better applications for Linux and people will come.

3. Universal software installing is not only useless but a detriment to linux. Think about how much easier it would be to distribute viruses. Having a package manager with thousands of packages negates this "need" in my opinion. I find it much easier to install on Linux than on Windows and I use both daily.

4. The user hasn't had to really touch the commandline in years. I guess it depends on which distro you use but If you really don't want to touch the commandline then don't. Use Suse or Mandrake.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What needs to be done
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE: What needs to be done"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"I've heard comments like this for years now. What exactly are the hardware compatibility issues you speak of? Be more specific."

Well, I would say it is more usable on desktops than laptops.

I would say the main issue is that PnP and hotplug support need to improve. Example, I need to be able to pick up a USB key from a friend at a meeting, plug it in, and Linux needs to detect it and mount it for me without me having to do anything. Then I need to be able to unplug that and it should be automatically unmounted, and I plug in another device, maybe a digital camera, which again must be automatically detected and mounted.

Right now, Linux is rather weak in this area.

"Having a package manager with thousands of packages negates this "need" in my opinion."

I disagree. And the reason is that it often leaves you at the mercy of a volunteer package maintainer. The application may not be available at all because no one has bothered to create one. Other times, it might be available, but outdated, because when a new version is released, there can sometimes be a significant amount of lag time between the time the version is released, and the time the volunteer package maintainer gets around to updating his package.

But sometimes it is even worse than that. Because the package manager sometimes creates a dependancy chain that can cause the whole process to stall. Example: I maintain package B, and I want to update package B to a new version, but new version of B depends on a new version of A, which the maintainer of package A has not gotten around to updating yet.

I agree that there needs to be a universal installer of some type. An installer that is pretty much the accepted standard that application writers use to package their applications. Something that eliminate the middleman.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What needs to be done
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE: What needs to be done"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Wireless has been a problem for Linux for a while, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future because of some issues that are out of the hands of even the hardware guys. But besides that, Linux does have pretty good hardware support...except for ACPI. And no, it doesn't matter if the hardware specs aren't being followed . The kernel guys have to adjust.

Linux does not need the ability to run windows program. It's always be a losing proposition because it'll always be half-assed and it defeats the purpose of having something that windows doesn't have.

One click universal installer is important. It could be something like Klik or, better yet, something where the native package installer understands the formats and gets the dependencies automatically.

Reply Score: 0

Right on!
by Anonymous on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I agree with that. Wi-FI, modem(software), tv cards and USB have more problems in Linux then windows. Why hardware company are restricting there hardware specification is something strange to me.
And i think is the major problem with hardare devices having problem with Linux. (NO SUPPORT FROM HARDWARE SUPPLIER).

Maybe secret contract agreements exist with microsoft to not release information to other potential competitive OS in exchange of valuable or hidden information to build driver under windows(hypotesis). (English is not my first Language, sorry)

Reply Score: 0

I think the article is a little unfair ...
by WorknMan on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:35 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Anyone who reads many of my comments knows I'm a Windows guy. However, one thing I can say about Windows is that there are a LOT of shitty drivers out there, much more than there should be. If you're not careful about what you buy, you could spend hours upon hours of frustration getting stuff to work, and sometimes have no luck at all for reasons only God himself knows. Contrast this with Linux - even if getting a piece of hardware running is a pain in the ass, if it has the ability to work, you can pretty much always make it work if you've got patience. In other words, making something work in Linux may require more technical skill, but rarely does it involve voodoo like sometimes happens on Windows ;)

That being said, if I buy a piece of hardware for Windows and it doesn't work out of the box, I'll download the driver from the manufacturer website, a luxury most Linux users don't have. If it doesn't work with the latest driver, it goes back in the box and back to the store. Why? Because my time is worth more to me than dicking with something that should work, but doesn't. However, I tend to research my hardware choices carefully, so rarely do I ever run into problems.

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I can agree with this post. I've had similar problems (though with older Windows versions) and have tried to help people with similar problems even on modern Windows versions (Win2K, XP, 2K3).

On linux the great problem is probably that you have to mess around with configuration files to make it work properly (though this can be true occassionally on Windows), and most users are running screaming away when they see something which isn't a 32-bit color Icon.

Your most important point: Research hardware choices carefully! <-- that's a wise one ;)

Reply Score: 1

Something people don't get
by Anonymous on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Linux != Windows

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Something people don't get
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 00:10 UTC in reply to "Something people don't get"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Your reliability rating right now is probably below 50%, as in more often than not, I get an error page.

I'll second you on this one -> DANG!

But the rest of your post is nonsense. The average user is not likely to have more problems or worse problems with Linux than with Windows. However, the average user is likely to have other problems.

The Linux Desktop is ready for average users, and newbies as well. Only Windows power users have troubles with switching to Linux. I mean, if my 67 year old father (and anything but computer savvy) can figure out how to use Linux, then an average user ought to be capable of it as well. How hard is it to doubleclick on an icon, or click on the foot to get a menu, or use Thunderbird on linux, when you're used to Thunderbird on Windows. How hard can it be?

And no, I don't consider Ubuntu the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't even consider sliced bread as a big thing. The wheel rules! And controlling the fire is another good thing. That, and the wheel. And shelter, so wind and rain won't harm us.

And the wheel. Greatest Invention of Man Kind.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Something people don't get
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Something people don't get"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"How hard is it to doubleclick on an icon, or click on the foot to get a menu, or use Thunderbird on linux, when you're used to Thunderbird on Windows. How hard can it be?"

It's not. But there are plenty of other issues in Linux that cause problems. And not just to power users.

Example: I recently took a business trip. Got to the airport, wanted to use my wireless. I tried it in Linux. Nothing, nada, zip. According to ifconfig I was seeing the network, cause I was recieving packets from it. But no matter what I tried, I could't get it to connect. This despite the fact that I know the wireless works because I have had it working fine on my wireless router at home. Had to boot into WinXP at the airport where the wireless worked flawlessly and instantly.

Another issue is that hotplug leaves a lot to be desired. While on the trip, I plugged an externel USB keycard into my USB port. Again, nothing, nada, zip. Not even with a reboot. Didn't see the keycard at all. Again, had to boot into Windows. And once again, in Windows, the card was detected instantly as soon as I plugged in, and without any problems at all.

Linux works ok as long as you don't want to try something new. But when you do, it oftne requires a fair amount of monkeying around to get things to work the first time. After you have them working the first time, they will usually continue to work without any further hassle (except for the wireless at the airport, which I have yet to figure out why it didn't work when I know it worked fine on my network at home). But often the things that require monkeying around in Linux, simply just work in Windows. And they work automatically, with no monkeying around at all.

Edited 2005-12-17 01:49

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, several of my classmates have problems accessing the wireless network at our college. They have XP on their desktops, can see the network. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Does this mean Windows isn't ready for the desktop? If no, then it cannot mean Linux isn't ready for the desktop.

I have a friend who had to buy a new webcam, because the one she had, wouldn't work with her laptop. Neither in Windows 2000 Pro, nor in WinXP Home. Does that mean Windows isn't ready for the desktop? If no, it cannot mean Linux isn't ready for the desktop.

I've never had any issues with hotplug. It works even better on Linux (for me) than it does on Windows. Even with faster read/write (much faster). And despite the fact I'm using gentoo I had to configure nothing at all. I installed it, and there it was. Working perfectly. I only have one issue, and that's the webcam and I haven't tried to solve it. Doesn't really matter to me. I can even read and write to NTFS partitions - safely.

There was a little problem with drivers for my graphic card, but again. There was also problems with my graphic card on Win2K3. So no difference there (and solution was the same, sort of. Different drivers did the trick on both OS'es).

However, it is a known problem to get wireless on laptops to work in linux, but this is mostly due to faulty specs rather than a fault in Linux. There are also known problems with Windows and wireless network in combination with laptops.

Sometimes things work, sometimes they don't. And the OS is seldom the problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Something people don't get
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Something people don't get"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

Come on... you are just denying reality. I'm sorry but you are. Things that work flawlessly in Windows, just don't work as easily in Linux. I'm sorry, but that's the simple truth. The simple fact is Linux has a lot more problems with hardware not working the way it should without a lot of screwing around than Windows does.

If you honestly think plug and play support in Linux is anywhere near as good as it is in Windows, you really are in total denial of reality.

"However, it is a known problem to get wireless on laptops to work in linux, but this is mostly due to faulty specs rather than a fault in Linux."

Sure... Blame the specs... Nothing is ever Linux's fault, is it?

The simple fact is that it is problem to get wireless to work in Linux, because a lot of the Linux wireless drivers are buggy.

"And the OS is seldom the problem."

I'm sorry. I completely forgot. Nothing is ever Linux's fault. It's always the hardware's fault. I hope you aren't majoring in computer science, because you have some really screwed up ideas about what causes things not to work correctly.

I should have known better than to think a Linux zealot would ever admit that Linux simply doesn't do some things very well.

Please give it a rest. This defending Linux past all point of reason and logic only makes you look absurd. The fact the zealots won't admit there is anything wrong with Linux at all, or anything it has problems with, or anything it could do better, gets really damn old.

Edited 2005-12-17 02:42

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Come on... you are just denying reality. I'm sorry but you are. Things that work flawlessly in Windows, just don't work as easily in Linux. I'm sorry, but that's the simple truth. The simple fact is Linux has a lot more problems with hardware not working the way it should without a lot of screwing around than Windows does.

Uhhh? Denying reality? How do you know, what my system can or cannot? I just plug it in, and it works. That's what it's supposed to do, considering what the kernel supports.

I admit more than readily that some distributions have serious issues around "It Just Works". When I used Fedora, all kind of things were broken out of the "box", especially media playback (though hotplug worked flawlessly for the devices I have - except from the webcam - tried to get it to work, and wasted a lot of time on that).

I don't know which distribution you use, or what your kernel(s) support(s), but so far gentoo Just Works, apart from the webcam. And I haven't done anything to configure it. /etc/portage/package.keywords and /etc/make.conf and /etc/rc.conf are the three files I've messed with, and that is not even necessary if you use the experimental graphical installer.

Sure... Blame the specs... Nothing is ever Linux's fault, is it?

I didn't write that. Sometimes it is the fault of the OS, but that is true too for Windows and Mac OS X. Linux is not special on this.

The simple fact is that it is problem to get wireless to work in Linux, because a lot of the Linux wireless drivers are buggy.

True, and faulty specs are a major reason for that (which is why Linus said what he said about specs). If you followed the kernel discussions you would have known that.

I'm sorry. I completely forgot. Nothing is ever Linux's fault. It's always the hardware's fault. I hope you aren't majoring in computer science, because you have some really screwed up ideas about what causes things not to work correctly.

I never wrote that. I actually did write that Linux has issues. I wrote it seldom is the fault of the OS. Whether it is Windows or Mac OS X or Linux or whatever, the OS is seldom the part to blame. Should I blame Microsoft for third party vendors writing crappy drivers? Or for third party vendors writing crappy games which keeps crashing?

Personally I dualboot Win2K3 Server and Gentoo Linux and right now, this is being written in FireFox 1.5 on Windows. It's around 24 hours since last time this computer were running Linux.

Well, I'm sorry to let you down about Computer Science. Read my profile ;) Too bad for you.

I don't have screwed up ideas about whatever causes the problems. You have however screwed up ideas about what I'm writing, trying to manipulate the meaning of my words. Stop doing that.

I should have known better than to think a Linux zealot would ever admit that Linux simply doesn't do some things very well.

I'm not a linux zealot. Zealot is being extremely passionate about something, to the extent of being "religious" about it. I don't have such feelings about Linux, nor about Windows.

I do however have extreme feelings about the norwegian soccer style, but so do most Danes. We just hate that kind of soccer, if it even qualifies as soccer. I think not.

[/i]Please give it a rest. This defending Linux past all point of reason and logic only makes you look absurd. The fact the zealots won't admit there is anything wrong with Linux at all, or anything it has problems with, or anything it could do better, gets really damn old.[/i]

All I wrote was that it worked flawlessly on my system, except for the webcam thing. And that's right out of the box, apart from the graphic driver thing, which also was an issue on Windows 2003 Server (as expected considering it's meant for use as a server and not on the desktop, though it's a good Desktop OS - it really is - sorry Linux zealots, but Win2K3 is good - so is Gentoo).

Well, Linux seems to have problems with my webcam. So far no linux distributions has been capable of supporting it, though I haven't tried solving it on Gentoo. Perhaps Gentoo can support it, but none of the other distributions could.

But it's funny though, that Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows NT 4.0 all failed to support my Riva TNT card on my former PC, despite drivers being available. This was due to CPU+mobo combination (a lousy mobo with VIA bios and an AMD K6 CPU). It never was solved, and there was no fix for this known problem. Except from switching motherboard, or using a Pentium MMX CPU.

However, DOS and Linux had no issues with that graphic card - so did that mean that Windows wasn't ready for the desktop back then? And that DOS was ready for the Desktop?

I fail to see how I'm a linux zealot when I clearly state there are problems with my webcam on linux, and that no distribution so far has been capable of supporting it, while it works flawlessly on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

NOTICE:

Paragraph number six from bottom

Please give it a rest. This defending Linux past all point of reason and logic only makes you look absurd. The fact the zealots won't admit there is anything wrong with Linux at all, or anything it has problems with, or anything it could do better, gets really damn old.

was written by Simba. I some how managed to screw up the tags. Sorry for that, Simba.

Reply Score: 1

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Well, I don't particularly like the prevailing attitude that goes the other way:
If it doesn't work on Windows, the hardware is bad.
If it doesn't work on Linux, Linux sucks.

If it's drivers both times... why are people more willing to accept them on Windows? Just because the drivers were written by a company?

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

The statement "nothing is ever Linux's fault" isn't right.

Wireless is a problem mostly of the lack of specs, and the fact that some of the companies aren't very willing to work with the community (even to release a closed source driver.) But don't worry about this: the biggest holdout (Broadcom) will stop being an issue (if you are willing to put forth a little effort, it can stop being a issue now). Check out bcm43xx.berlios.de/ for a work in progress broadcom driver.

In my (limited) experience with Linux, when things work, they seem to do so quite well.
Case in point: every time my friend had to reinstall Windows, he would have to install the drivers for the harddrives so the system could see all the (13) hard drives. Under SUSE 10, it just picked up all the drives right away.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Something people don't get
by Simba on Sun 18th Dec 2005 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Something people don't get"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"But don't worry about this: the biggest holdout (Broadcom) will stop being an issue (if you are willing to put forth a little effort, it can stop being a issue now). Check out bcm43xx.berlios.de/ for a work in progress broadcom driver. "

Atheros chipsets are also rather problematic, and getting my Atheros adapter to work required some extra effort and hunting around on the Internet. And even after getting it to work on my home network, it refused to work on the airport's wireless network while I was waiting for a flight. I had to boot into WinXP, and in WinXP, it worked flawlessly, with no configuration required at all.

Edited 2005-12-18 00:12

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually wireless on Linux is getting worse not better. And when you move base B support and onto G support its a disaster. I spent the better part of an entire night researching chipsets and the pickings are slim.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Something people don't get
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Something people don't get"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"However, it is a known problem to get wireless on laptops to work in linux, but this is mostly due to faulty specs rather than a fault in Linux."

Oh... And just in case you are majoring in computer science? Let me give you a little piece of advice from someone who has been a software engineer probably longer than you have been alive:

When things go wrong, the fault is almost always with the software.

It's not faulty specs. Same problem with failure to detect some USB devices: Buggy Linux drivers. And buggy PnP support.

Edited 2005-12-17 03:14

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

If something goes wrong, you usually have to fix it at software level. This is no news for anyone. So what's your point?

Issues with Linux is due to faulty specs. Solution is to forget about the specs and just write the drivers so they work flawlessly, instead of writing for a spec which is wrong.

That's accidentally also what Linus wrote a while ago.

The specs are at fault when they describe something else than what the product actually is. That's why Linus told people NOT to code according to specs, but according to how that device actually worked.

I believe you agree with that. And that the solution is to be implemented at software level (the opposite is to modify all existing devices deviating from their specs - not a realistic solution).

Problems with drivers aren't always they are badly coded, or contain bugs, but that they are written to meet specs that don't fit reality. (Just to write it all once more, so you don't miss my point since you don't seem to read what I write).

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Something people don't get
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Something people don't get"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> So what's your point?

My point is you keep trying to compare Windows to Linux when you can't do so. "Oh sure Linux has some problems, but so does Windows." The simple fact is when it comes to problems with getting hardware to work, or plug and play devices to be detected, Linux has many many more problems than Windows does. It's plug and play support it not nearly as good. But you see everything in black and white, when the reality is that it is gray. Sure, they both have issues. But Windows has far fewer of them, which means users are less likely to run into problems with wireless adapters not working, or USB plugins not being detected. But you don't want to see that. You want to see it is a black and white issue and say that Windows is no better at it then Linux because Windows has problems as well.

"Problems with drivers aren't always they are badly coded, or contain bugs"

I'm not saying they are badly coded. But a lot of them do contain bugs that cannot be blamed on the specs. The fact that Linux's PnP support leaves a lot to be desired cannot be blamed on specs. It can be blamed on the fact that PnP support in Linux is still relatively young, and is quite buggy, and that a lot of devices are not supported.

And yes, you are being a zealot. Because you are trying to make this a black and white issue, when in fact, it is a gray issue. You are trying to say "Well, Windows has problems too, so if you say Linux isn't ready, then it must mean Windows isn't either." That's seeing it in black and white, and ignoring the fact that there is an enormous quantitative difference. Linux has far more problems with hardware not working correctly--especially hotpluggable PnP devices, than Windows does.

Edited 2005-12-17 03:36

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Something people don't get
by rayiner on Sat 17th Dec 2005 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Something people don't get"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem here is a matter of definitions. Both sides claim to be talking about "is Linux ready for the desktop?" One side argues "yes, there are lots of desktops that Linux is ready for", while the other argues "Linux isn't yet ready for the home user desktop (and may never be)". Both are true, though the latter view misses the point of the exercise. The real question is: can Linux grow its market share in the desktop space. The answer is yes it can, just because there are indeed desktop scenarios for which it is suited. The fact that Linux may never serve the average home user is besides the point --- if it serves a decent number of corporate customers, it can built up a very profitable and sustainable niche indeed.

I think the fundamental fact that the Windows camp is missing is that you don't need 70% desktop market share to be a successful desktop OS. Apple is a multi-billion dollar company built on just a few percent market share. If Linux can get up to just 5% (far better than, say, BeOS ever did), that would make it a successful and usable desktop system.

The list somebody posted about the things Linux needs to succeed in the desktop market (eg: run Windows apps, etc), are a product of this mistaken notion. That list is a list of things needed to kill Microsoft (and even then, it might not be sufficient!) Killing Microsoft is hardly the goal of the people pushing desktop Linux. Getting enough market share where there is decent support from software and hardware vendors is a goal, however. Apple has shown that this can be done with as little as 3% market share. I think Linux in its present form can get 4-5%, just by targetting the corporate market. It can probably get up to 10%, by getting professional desktops, media workstations, and corporate PCs. It can be quite successful without ever going into the painful and relatively unprofitable market that is high-volume home PCs.

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

The real question is: can Linux grow its market share in the desktop space. The answer is yes it can, just because there are indeed desktop scenarios for which it is suited. The fact that Linux may never serve the average home user is besides the point --- if it serves a decent number of corporate customers, it can built up a very profitable and sustainable niche indeed.

Obviously when you are dealing with a locked down environment, where the only thing you need is a browser for some data entry, linux as well as other options are capable. So even if you're ready to cut your losses on the home front, you're still missing the point about what higher-level knowledge workers and the developers for their software need. It's still up in the air even if OpenOffice is up to the challenge of being a replacement for Office. We all know the story about how the OO code base is a monstrosity of unimaginable proportions. And that's just dealing with non-specialized medium-level information workers.

The dirty little not-so-secret of one of Microsoft's killer apps is VB. Yes...VB. That little language that everybody likes to bash, but gets things done. Once you get into the real world where things just need to get done and zealotry is laughed at, VB does(did) do the job of getting moderately complex apps talking to databases like no other language. Java doesn't even come close to being RAD. Python and Ruby might be up to the task, but they are still severly lacking in the Smalltalk-like environments that would bring to par with VB. It's been said that there are more lines of VB in the world then COBOL at this time. And I wouldn't be surprised if its true. So companies that need moderately complex GUI applicatons with good performance and RAD capabilities just naturally turned to VB and won Microsoft the corporate office. Don't forget about all hooks for Office and Excel that it could script for. So even in the office, it's still an uphill battle. Linux probably grow in that space, but the point is that if things had been done differently on the desktop front for Linux in the past, it wouldn't be facing these difficulties. You gotta put all the little pieces together of the puzzle to get the big picture.

I think Linux in its present form can get 4-5%, just by targetting the corporate market. It can probably get up to 10%, by getting professional desktops, media workstations, and corporate PCs. It can be quite successful without ever going into the painful and relatively unprofitable market that is high-volume home PCs.

I agree, but it's just so painful to watch all the mistakes that desktop linux has to go through in order to achieve that, when if things had been done differently it would be so much easier. Desktop Linux absolutely didn't have to be in the awkward position it is right now if some foresight had been used in the past.

Linux holds on to its legacy Unix past because flexibility has worked well for the server. Servers tend to be single-purpose machines handled by skilled admins. But the desktop is a whole different ballgame. Not having a somewhat coherent policy of what a desktop should consist of has hurt Linux. That's the whole point of OSDL and the Portland project. But it's still up in the air of what they can or will accomplish.

Reply Score: 1

oh boy another one.
by Anonymous on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I fail to see why people continue to drone on about linux vs. windows. Who cares. If linux doesnt work for you dont use it. Its that simple. All this lets replace stuff is getting old. You will just replace one paradigm with another and then youll constantly complain about the new paradigm.
I personally enjoy linux not being widely deployed as a desktop platform. It saves me support calls for both Linux and Windows. Relatives have problem with windows, sorry cant help I use linux. And if they cant figure out windows why would they try linux? I fail to see the point here. Linux should keep doing what it is doing. Those that want to use it will, those that dont, wont.
The problem isnt windows or linux. The problem is clueless users and the idea that they dont need to know anything to use a computer. For that you can thank Microsoft and apple.

Reply Score: 3

What Linux NEEDS...
by DigitalAxis on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:39 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

I've said it before and I'll say it again: What desktop Linux needs is the killer app. Right now it's trying to be a replacement for Windows with benefits over Windows that only a few seem to see, and the best software (imho) for Linux is all available on Windows for Windows users to enjoy. (Gaim, the Gimp, Audacity, The Battle for Wesnoth, Firefox, Thunderbird- and these are mostly imitations of Windows programs anyway)

Just about the only Linux-only program I've ever seen anyone wowed by is the xscreensaver screensaver package, and that's not being ported because the author hates Windows and won't have anything to do with it.

What Linux needs is the amazing program that can't be run on Windows and can't be run on Mac. Something standout, like Visicalc was for the Apple II- KDE 4 probably won't cut it.

This is what makes Linux so popular in academia- they got computers early with UNIX on them, and now the community has developed massive and intricate programs that have to be run on *nix and not Windows. I've got a couple programs I have to use Linux to run. (yeah, windows probably could but it would require careful setup of third-party programs to replicate a *nix system.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: What Linux NEEDS...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:42 UTC in reply to "What Linux NEEDS..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The whole idea of Linux on the Desktop is NOT to beat Microsoft, but to give users the Choice.

So far we've succeeded, so: Don't worry - Be Happy ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: What Linux NEEDS...
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 00:11 UTC in reply to "What Linux NEEDS..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"What Linux needs is the amazing program that can't be run on Windows and can't be run on Mac. Something standout, like Visicalc was for the Apple II- KDE 4 probably won't cut it. "

the problem is to get that you have to make it closed source.

Reply Score: 0

RE: What Linux NEEDS...
by unoengborg on Sat 17th Dec 2005 14:38 UTC in reply to "What Linux NEEDS..."
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

"What Linux needs is the amazing program that can't be run on Windows and can't be run on Mac. Something standout, like Visicalc was for the Apple II- KDE 4 probably won't cut it."

I disagree, instead I would say beeing cross platform is the killer feature. Make the choise of OS irrelevant, and people will chose something that is secure, stable and free. Linux fits that description, and have allready large enough market share to get some attention from hardware developers (even though it could be evenbetter).

So if people didn't have to worry about switching to different applications when switching OS, it would be much more likely that they tried to avoid the Microsoft tax by moving to Linux.

What Linux developers that want to promote Linux should look for is Windows apps that can be ported to Linux, and Linux apps that can be ported to windows and focus on such functionality that make a switch impossible for a certain group of users.

Just look at OpenOffice. When that became available Linux all of a sudden became a vialble alternative as it now was possible to interact with users still using windows. Few organizations will switch from Windows to Linux over night, so the ability to communicate with windows is essential.

One of the most important group of apps that remains to be made cross platform would be mail and calendering applications. They are very important parts of the communication infrastructure in most organizations.

Reply Score: 1

whatever....
by Anonymous on Fri 16th Dec 2005 23:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I fail to see peoples obsession with comparing linux and windows, other than to stroke their own pole. I personally like that linux isnt more widely used as a desktop. It saves me support calls from friends and relatives. I use windows all day at work and use linux at home. So why would I want to deal with windows issues on off time. Get a phone call and "sorry I use linux". If the users cant figure out something in windows they sure arent going to figure it out in Linux.
The problem here isnt linux or windows or hardware. the problem is clueless users. And for that you can thank Microsoft and apple.

Reply Score: 0

JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

The answer is very simple:

Rather than buying a Windows pre-installed PC (then load Linux (distro of your choice) as a dual boot, or rather than buy a PC without an OS, buy your next PC from a hardware vendor that supports Linux and has it pre-installed for you -

http://koobox.com/

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/search.asp?cat=...

http://www.walmart.com/search/browse-ng.do?ics=18&ico=0&ref=+125875...

http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html

http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/linux/products/clients/client...

Reply Score: 3

Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

I've been toying with the idea of buying a low-end Dell or a used laptop & installing the Ubuntu distro, but the Linuxcertified laptops look to be a better way to go.

Reply Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Best suggestion yet sir, would add one more for certified Linux servers, not only pre-installed but burned in at:

http://xicomputer.com/

Reply Score: 1

Hardware support is only one hurdle.
by Jody on Sat 17th Dec 2005 00:03 UTC
Jody
Member since:
2005-06-30

I don't know why people keep picking one thing and saying that is the what is keeping Linux from the deskop.

There is a combination of maybe 20 things and almost any one of them could be show stoppers for many users migrating.

Even if hardware support was nearly perfect I could still come up with ~19 other reasons why things will basicially just stay the same.

Out of these 20 or so reasons some of them can be overcome (like driver support) but some of them will never change due to the very nature of Linux.

Things are going to continue to progress one really difficult problem and .2% market share at a time for a really long time.

Reply Score: 1

i wil agree
by dizzey on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:17 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

the day i can install windows without needing a floppy drive in my pc.

and som hassel of reflashing laptops bios to get windows working

Reply Score: 1

RE: i wil agree
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:28 UTC in reply to "i wil agree"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

What is it that you're installing? Windows NT 3.51?

You haven't needed a floppy drive to install Windows since Windows 95/Windows NT 4.0.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: i wil agree
by Deletomn on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE: i wil agree"
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe he is talking about when you are installing Windows onto a computer that uses an unsupported drive controller, like a number of RAID cards.

During installation, once you tell Windows that it needs to load the device driver, it will ask you for a floppy disk in the A drive. (If I remember correctly)

However, you can also make a Windows CD that has all the drivers you need on it. (I'm not sure if there are any legal complications with doing this.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: i wil agree
by dylansmrjones on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i wil agree"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, it's legal in Denmark, as long as you don't distribute the CD. But then. Nobody (with a decent mind) distributes software without a proper license for that particular software, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: i wil agree
by Tom K on Sat 17th Dec 2005 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i wil agree"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I usually create a slipstreamed XP + SP2 + common drivers CD set, so that when I fix clients' computers and they need a re-install, most of the common stuff is already there (SATA, Ethernet, AGP, etc.).

Reply Score: 1

RE: i wil agree
by dylansmrjones on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:29 UTC in reply to "i wil agree"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Eeehh...?

You don't need a floppy drive in your pc to install Windows. You can install Windows directly from cd. That's what I did with Win2K Pro and Win2K3 Server.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: i wil agree
by pepa on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE: i wil agree"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

Just this week I installed Windows 2003 and XP Professional SP2 (2 times), and all needed floppy's because the ethernet card driver was not on the Windows CD. And W2k3 also didn't have drivers for the fakeraid card. I was very underwhelmed, as any simple Linux liveCD handles all this without problems.

Reply Score: 1

Even with vendor drivers cdrom
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think this is not a operative system issue, because even with Windows and the vendors cdrom you may have twice recognised the same hardware, device conflicts, the vendors utility and windows hardware recognition fighting for the same device, etc etc etc.

IMHO, PC architecture needs a revision, or even a substitute.

Plugin in every new hardware should be as easy as a USB storage device or USB input device or USB printer. The device should tell via CMOS which options has included and which not to the OS. And the generic driver deals with everything else.

Really, think about it, cause is not a Linux, Windows, BSD, MacOS, problem.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Pleasantly Surprised
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Same problem here. When the computer is booted with Mandrake, my wife and my 2 kids don't want to use it."

Perfect! More time for you, and less time for your kids to waste with Neopets or whatever ;)

So true though; family member inertia has to be a major reason for dual booting.

Reply Score: 0

Sometimes easier
by MamiyaOtaru on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:32 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

In certain circumstances, hardware/drivers are easier in Linux. When a driver exists, and is compiled in your kernel, it's a heck of a lot easier than windows. Plug it in and go. I love not having to insert a CD and install heaven knows what to get a printer to work.

On the other hand, if the driver isn't compiled already, it gets a little harder. make menuconfig, compile kernel modules, bleh. At least it generally works when you're done.

Worse yet though is when the driver doesn't exist at all of course, but I prefer to focus on the first possibility, existing drivers already compiled as kernel modules. No dubious programs in the systray for each peripheral ;)

Reply Score: 2

Specs and drivers
by SlackerJack on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:33 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

If hardware vendors gave the specs out more there would be so much of a problem and since the kernel have ALOT of driver support(out of the box much more than Windows) then I dont see a problem.

Since OEM's make there computers work out of the box with there hardware anyway, whats the difference with Linux!. Non since the time it takes is less, just think of the time they have having to setup and install drivers and software. I dont like the idea of installing crappy drivers, Microsoft admit that 89% for problems come from bad drivers.

"Every day Linux users encounter driver and compatibility issues which Windows users have not had to deal with for years"

Yes and so do Windows users, see above.

Reply Score: 1

Good but
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 01:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Linux is good but lacks drivers that's the main problem for this OS to reach competitive market !
I know it's not the fault of people who develop it butmore on manufacturers but it's a shame to have to stick with windows / compile + configure for hours for something that workout of the box on windows !
So bad that a lot of programs / interface suffer this problem !
I see a lot of hayatholah claiming it works but wifi clearly doesn't works for a majority of cards and stop changing every years of sound framework and/or make a standardised access to it independant to the framwork for basic needs !

Reply Score: 0

not so easy
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

everyone has to remember that linux code writers have to reverse engineer most hardware in order to make drivers for them. Considering they don't get paid, they do a hell of a job. If they got engineer white papers for hardware like windows driver coders, their drivers would be better. Just because windows has more available drivers, doesn't necessarily make them better. Stable windows drivers for a lot of hardware is a crap shoot. I myself use both windows and linux. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, but I lean towards linux a slight bit. It's just annoying reading people's opinions on here and you can tell that they don't even use linux. If you don't know, don't post your hearsay.

Reply Score: 1

Linux Kernel is still unstable
by hraq on Sat 17th Dec 2005 02:42 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux Kernel is still unstable; which lead you to thing the hardware problems you are facing is originating from the hardware drivers or the real hardware whereas it is really comming from the kernel.
I will give a simple example; If you insert a corrupt DVD or CD-ROM burned as an ISO or even UDF (any version) the kernel will panic and linux will freeze this will happen in all major linux OS currently available (Redhat Enterprise 4.2, Novell SUSE, Mandriva 2005, Xandros,...others less important). This freeze will lead to a complete loss of keyboard and mouse functions and the start button of the system will not be able to shutdown the system at all. The only solution will be to reset your system and to loose all active work on the background; which is not acceptable in both the servers and workstations.
This kind of a problem is related to ISO 9660 bug in the kernel 2.6.12 and those developers are aware of the bug which is considered serious and they didn't correct it since the kernel v 2.4.x which a very long time in my opinion. All of this trouble is related to linus himself because of his priorities when dealing with bugs and part of the problem is related to the previously mentioned developers. So this makes the CD/DVD burning software companies a little hisitant to develop for linux as well as the hardware manufacturers.
Take the previous example as only one sample of the many other problems facing the linux and you will understand why there is much hesitancy towards it.

Reply Score: 0

The same old argument
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you give it as an option on the computer they will come. There's a little bit of truth to that, but then all the other issues are never discussed.

There are companies that sell linux with the computer. Linspire, as mentioned in the article, is bundled with some computer. But if the Linux desktop is viable then why isn't RedHat, Novell, Sun or someone else putting out the ads for it? Maybe the three mentioned companies could pool some advertising money together if they feel it is viable.

Well, we know that RedHat doesn't really think the Linux desktop is viable right now. Their executives have said this countless time. Novell is hunkering down into server mode with their problems. And Sun...is well Sun..and wants to be a hardware company above all.

Luis Villa, of Gnome got it partially right http://tieguy.org/blog/index.cgi/523. But you have to ask why is Firefox the most important open source desktop application out there. It's because it did something better that people wanted. Gnome or KDE just don't have that. The mainstream doesn't care about source code or desktops or kernels, they care about applications.

Until people get out of the mindset that tweaking Gnome or KDE to work better is going to change things then there is no hope. Frankly, someone needs to tie something to Linux specifically that is better, innovative, and doesn't work on windows or any other platform.

Look at OSX. If you want the OSX experience then you have to buy the whole shebang. There is no port to Windows. There is no real port to another Unix.

So the bottom line is that until there is a real compelling reason to switch to Linux then there won't be much switching. XP works well enough, even with all its problems.

Reply Score: 1

Printing...
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 03:58 UTC
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

Btw, printing is another major issue. A lot of printers don't have drivers for Linux. So often you are stuck selecting a relatively generic driver, which often doesn't support the advanced features of the printer, including things such as some resolutions may not be supported, and low ink notifications may not be supported.

Reply Score: 3

RE: i wil agree
by DrillSgt on Sat 17th Dec 2005 04:54 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

"the day i can install windows without needing a floppy drive in my pc."

Ermmm...you have not needed a floppy drive in your PC since Windows 98 to install Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I agree but
by archiesteel on Sat 17th Dec 2005 05:10 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

You can run Photoshop on Linux (Disney Animation studios do it).

If you don't do print, then Gimp is a good equivalent to Photoshop on both Linux and Windows.

Oh, and some cheap hardware runs well on Linux. Just not all of it. As usual, check before you buy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I agree but
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE: I agree but "
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"You can run Photoshop on Linux (Disney Animation studios do it)."

They run it under Wine. And it sucks pretty bad under Wine. (Yes, I have run it under Wine)

Most of Disney's tools are in-house developed. And a lot of their workstations are actually Windows and Mac based. The vast majority of Linux at Disney Feature Animation is on the backend render farm.

Edited 2005-12-17 05:27

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

You mean 2.5% market share... :-)

Hey, as long as Microsoft doesn't go out of his way to make life difficult for alternative OS users, I'll be fine. I don't want world domination, I just want a level playing field...

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Trying to get things such as WPA2 with 802.1x working can be quite a pain with Linux for Average User.

Trying to get wireless to work in Windows can also be a pain for average users. I know, I'm the one they call to help them set it up...

Reply Score: 1

Oh, Really?
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 05:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Windows is supposed to have wireless sewed up, while Linux supposedly can't successfully run most of the well-known wireless devices.

Well, over the last two weeks, I've been trying to get Windows XP to connect to the Net through a Linksys WRT54G router and through an SBC Speedstream DSL modem. It should have been a piece of cake. Neither I nor an SBC tech could make it work.

Today my client had both me and the Geek Squad from the Best Buy that sold her the router out to the office. The Geek Squad guy got the setup to work for a bit, then it died when I deleted the unnecessary XP DSL connection (PPPoE was terminated on the router.)

The Geek Squad guy did a ton of tests and concluded the integrated Ethernet was dead on the PC.

My client was going to buy a replacement NIC card from Dell, the PC maker - who screwed up by waltzing her around trying to sell her a - wait for it - $49.95 Gigabit Ethernet card - and then hung up on her. So she decided to try troubleshooting with Dell tech support and get them to send a card if that didn't work.

Of course, in the process of walking through the Dell script, Dell proceeded to have me reload the disk image from the backup partition.

Which fixed the problem.

In other words, Windows XP hosed itself in communicating with the Linksys and nobody could figure out how or why.

Read that last: NOBODY could figure out how or why.

On Linux, you read the config files, fix them, and wallah! On Windows, when something fails, good luck and mail in the five dollars.

Oh, and Windows drivers suck rocks.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Oh, Really?
by Googlesaurus on Sat 17th Dec 2005 05:48 UTC in reply to "Oh, Really?"
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"Well, over the last two weeks, I've been trying to get Windows XP to connect to the Net through a Linksys WRT54G router and through an SBC Speedstream DSL modem. It should have been a piece of cake. Neither I nor an SBC tech could make it work.

Today my client had both me and the Geek Squad from the Best Buy that sold her the router out to the office. The Geek Squad guy got the setup to work for a bit, then it died when I deleted the unnecessary XP DSL connection (PPPoE was terminated on the router.)"

I'm going to leave you out of this....
BUT your client is the idiot. (and I seldom use the term) IF you need Geek Squad to fix your problems, may God have mercy.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Oh, Really?
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 05:48 UTC in reply to "Oh, Really?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

...You actually think the guys who work for Geek Squad know what they are talking about? They are Best Buy hardware tech monkies who don't even get paid enough to care. Neither does Dell's telephone tech support. These guys get paid maybe $12 an hour (and Geek Squad people probably get paid even less than that). Not nearly enough to care. As to telephone tech support people. The one time I had to call Dell tech support, I got some guy who probably knew half as much as I did about the problem in question.

"On Linux, you read the config files, fix them, and wallah! On Windows, when something fails, good luck and mail in the five dollars."

That's assuming you can even get it to work at all on Linux. As I said, my wireless card which works fine on my home network running Linux, refused to work when I tried to connect to the wireless network at the airport. Absolutely no logical reason whatsoever it shouldn't have worked on that network. And it worked without a hitch when I rebooted into Windows.

That and the average user wouldn't have a clue what to do with those config files, even if they could find online documentation on them.

"Oh, and Windows drivers suck rocks."

Not nearly as bad as a lot of the half-baked Linux drivers out there do.

Edited 2005-12-17 06:00

Reply Score: 1

Linux on the Desktop
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 05:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I found Linux more difficult than WindowsXP. It's true that you can encounter hardware issues(I have). What keeps bringing me back to Linux is that after the even though hardware issues are annoying during setup, it still takes less time than the "virus,spyware, and the constant badgering of the Window-OS. I use Debain Sarge, and ithas been rock solid dependable. My Windows driver seemed to always up to date, since I was having to reinstall it so often to get it to perform with reasonable reliability. The very programs to keep Windows "stable and secure" are often the same programs that cause it to malfunction. With Linux, I have more trouble on initial setup with a new computer, but thereafter, life is much more peaceful and productive.
I was once a skeptic about Linux, I am now a believer.
If you are happy with Windows, stay with Windows. Linux will be there, and it will grow, albeit slowly. It is already "Desktop Ready", it's just a matter of preference. For me "it just works."
Paul Sams

Reply Score: 3

Same old story
by SlackerJack on Sat 17th Dec 2005 06:05 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Works in Linux and not in Windows, works in Windows but not in Linux. Really people, over and over again I see the same old story.

So how much do hardware vendors have to pay to get that signture of Microsoft "WHQL Certified"?. If drivers are so much better in Windows why does Microsoft blame that for it's bad stability!. Atleast people like Andrew Morton try to stop bad drivers getting into the Linux kernel, and he's seen some real bad ones trying it on.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Same old story
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 06:11 UTC in reply to "Same old story"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"If drivers are so much better in Windows why does Microsoft blame that for it's bad stability!."

Well, to start with, WinXP is not unstable. I haven't had a single blue screen in WinXP.

And Microsoft only says that drivers that are not Windows certified can cause problems.

Reply Score: 1

"...Linux isn't a product."
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 06:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

" On the Linux Lunacy Geek Cruise last month, I had the pleasure of
getting some very educational hang time with 2.6 kernel maintainer
Andrew Morton and filesystem guru Ted Ts'o. I came away not only with
enormous respect for Andrew, Ted, and the kernel crew, but with an
even deeper realization that Linux is not an OS in the sense we've
been taught to think about one by the commercial marketplace.

Meaning, Linux isn't a product. "
Very interesting reading by Doc Searls, complete article at http://lists.ssc.com/pipermail/suitwatch/2005-November/000098.html

Reply Score: 0

A different look
by Pasha on Sat 17th Dec 2005 08:03 UTC
Pasha
Member since:
2005-07-06

Even if I partially agree with the article, I have to add something. If you need a quite box that does the daily home stuff almost any Linux distribution is perfect and runs smooth :

Browse Internet
Read/Write e-Mail
Chat
Work out some documents
Have fun with your photos and Digital Camera
Video capture (Kino)
Digital Music collection (mp3-ogg)
Burn your DVD/CD

When you want to do more, i.e. DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) you have complex setup to be made
(Alsa,Jack and the like) that is not really thought for the average user. Games are out of scope here, I tend to prefer a Playstation over a PC for many reasons.

Reply Score: 1

Bull.
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 09:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Quite simply, and with no disrespect to the writer, this is B.S. The fact is, many things work first time for me on Linux, which fail to work on Windows. My network card, for instance... a particular revision of a plain old DFE-530TX, is not recognised automatically on Win2K. So, I have all the extra hassle of trying to get a machine up and running without internet connectivity. Not fun. It *may* work on Windows XP, but I can't say that for certain, which is another kind of hassle and worry. On Linux, I never even have to think about the card. It works flawlessly, every time, no matter what distro I use, or whether I boot from an installed copy of Linux, or a live CD, or even boot disks.

Now, certainly, there are some things that work better on Windows, and some things that work better on Linux. However, that's an entirely different statement from implying that Linux is still inferior somehow.

For people still dealing with issues when they buy hardware like scanners, then it's simple... Buy hardware that that follows standards, such as using proper USB Scanner protocols instead of their own arbitrary protocols. Not only will it be more compatible; it'll also probably be better hardware, because they've taken the time to build it *right*.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Bull.
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 17:40 UTC in reply to "Bull."
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Quite simply, and with no disrespect to the writer, this is B.S. The fact is, many things work first time for me on Linux, which fail to work on Windows. My network card, for instance... "

No, it is not B.S. You are the exception to the rule if you have had more problems getting hardware to work in Windows than Linux. And if you try to say that is not true, you are simply kidding yourself.

"For people still dealing with issues when they buy hardware like scanners, then it's simple... Buy hardware that that follows standards, such as using proper USB Scanner protocols instead of their own arbitrary protocols."

Ah yes... The worn out tired old "It's not my fault you didn't check the HCL before you bought hardware" argument. This is one of the most tired arguments in the book.

And besides, it doesn't help with the situation I had now does it? Where I am on a business trip, and someone gives me a USB key they want me to get data off of, and said key is completely undetected by Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I agree but
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 10:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Photoshop has a number of Linux equivalents. Sure, they're not exactly the same, but they have their pros as well as their cons -- no two programs are exactly the same, even when they ARE competitive. Apart from that, photoshop is NOT the pinnacle of image editing. There are far more sophistocated programs out there, which are designed around natural media, or which even allow you to paint in three dimensions using projectile paint etc. It's only recently that Photoshop has stopped looking like a toy compared to some of these tools, and other graphics apps have been keeping up or are even ahead of photoshop too. Moreover, there is more going on here: Microsoft is threatening graphics apps on Windows, by releasing their OWN (Microsoft) graphics apps. So, graphics apps that were once windows-centric are being pushed to Linux, where they can flourish, instead of being stomped out of the market by a convicted monopolist. These apps are already looking at ways to share code and development practices with other Free Software apps, which, along with Free Software innovation already happening, makes Linux (or at least, non-windows platforms) the place to be for new graphics innovation.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Something people don't get
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 10:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think you mean, Linux is aimed at a high-end market, unlike Windows, which is aimed at the same consumers who buy a small cooker instead of a professional cooking range that would be at home in a restaurant. It's way too easy to misinterpret !=.

Reply Score: 0

How to undermine a monopoly
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 10:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The only way to undermine a monopoly is when people realise that monopolies are bad, and either demand that they are regulated at a governmental level, or simply vote with their feet and choose alternatives. Microsoft has already been convicted across the world of monopolistic practices which hurt society and citizens' rights. Yet, many people buy their crap anyway, and governments grant Bill Gates knighthoods, etc.

I, for one, will not participate in this any more. If you want freedom, lend your voice to products that don't disrespect you.

Reply Score: 0

simple solution
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 10:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

do your research before buying any hardware, make SURE it works in GNU/Linux before buying...

Reply Score: 0

Lame.
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 11:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is sooo pathetic. All you whiners want is a free Windows. Just face it. Linux is NOT Windows, and Linux cannot possibly support all devices since the manufacturers doesn't cooperate. Why can't you f--king get it? If your ATI card doesn't work, complain to ATI. Don't whine and whinge about Linux.

Also, how do you install Windows on a Sun Sparc? Or an Alpha? The fact is that Linux beats Windows hands down in the genre of hardware support. The only part where it lags is *modern* hardware, like the latest and the greates ATI products.

Have you tried to chase down drivers to old drivers to hardware that were produced by now defunct companies? (3dfx springs to mind as an example, there are probably more pressing examples around.) It's quite impossible in some cases, and in a closed source world you are *never* going to be able to continue using that piece of hardware because of this, even if it's otherwise perfectly adequate.

Also, the gravity of this "problem" is greatly overstated by those who feel threatened by something they do not understand. I've been using Linux for almost 10 years. The only hardware problem I've ever had has been related to nvidias graphic drivers. Finally this entire trollbait is based on the assumption that you *never* run into any problems with drivers on Windows. That is complete and utter bullshit, and if you google around you'll find more than enough horrorstories to prove it.

Either you are totally unable to see the difference between cause and effect, or you are just plain trolling. And I have my opinion on that regrading ~90% of the posters here, including Thom "I can't be wrong" Holwerda.

Reply Score: 1

Linux is nice.
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 12:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Windows is doomed. I recently switched to Linux, and Ill never go back. Open Office is good enough for me. GIMP 2.4 is on the way, and GIMP already has most of what I need. Blender runs faster on Linux. Blender is a killer app, BTW.

I require strong multimedia, and Linux is really beginning to threaten Windows and Apple on multimedia. I installed videolan, which was easy and I could watch all my videos in their various codecs.

Linux is better than Windows today, overall. Linux wins except for some very specific functionality. Windows is a dead OS, circling the toilet of software history.

Cheers :>)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Linux is nice.
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 17:41 UTC in reply to "Linux is nice."
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Windows is doomed.

Yep... That's why Windows has 94% marketshare and Linux has less than 2%. Keep dreaming.

Reply Score: 1

My experiences
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 16:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Tried Linux to develop with Mono. Hardware support for my Asus A4K portable is not sufficient. Video card (ATI Mobility 9700) works but the screen often gets scrambled. Wifi is totaly not supported unless you download drivers and recompile some stuff to get it all working ... or to get a compile error on which you can't react because you have lack of knowledge.
On the software side, I am running open-source alternatives on Windows for quite a while in order to make the transition to Linux as painless as posible. Guess I'll still have to wait for some better hardware support...
Installing software is another pain. I spent several evenings trying to get (for example) Mono running. Most repositories I found had outdated versions or were missing dependencies ... a real pain when you are used to work with Windows.

I do want to make the transition. I love the open-source model and the whole idea behind it. Money is often not the driving force behind the creation of open source software, innovation is. It's great to see a whole community working together to create better sofware (like Mozilla does).

Hopewe'll see a good Distro with great hardware support in the near future ...

Reply Score: 0

Linux & Hardware Drivers
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 17:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

When you consider that most of the drivers for Linux was written without the help of the hardware vendors, and with no support from them, you should realize that Linux is indeed a mature desktop. Imagine if you will, almost all of the drivers written for Linux were done in the OpenSource community with no support from the hardware vendors, and they were also written without violating any IP or copyright violations. Once hardware support for Linux becomes widespread and energy can be more focused on "just writing software apps", then Linux will cleary be seen as the superior operating system that it already is now. The fact that Open Source runs on so many platforms already is a testament to the quality of this OS. Try to imagine Microsoft doing that with their billions of dollars. They still can't make their OS secure without the aid of 3rd party apps. If Vista is more secure, you will be finding that your convienence and software/hardware compatibility will become a serious issue with Windows. There are already driver issues with Windows because of SP2(ask the man who found out). How do you feel when "Tech Support" blames SP2 for your problem, and "they are not responsible for "software problems." It is true after arguring with their "supervisors" that the will "agree' that their "product" may be at fault, especially when you point out that they "recomend WindowsXP." With MS the Chicken very often comes before the egg; and unfortunatly, Microsft seems to lay a lot of bad eggs on their way to a workable OS.
Paul Sams

Reply Score: 0

Windows driver problems
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 20:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Sorry but I have to strongly disagree with the author of that article. When we were still using Windows we had driver problems all the time. Since we are using Linux we haven't had a single problem with drivers on any of the desktops which vary across all conceivable combinations of hardware. Linux offers excellent driver support, even for rather exotic or outdated hardware.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Windows driver problems
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 21:05 UTC in reply to "Windows driver problems"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

Again, typically, the problems show up more on laptops than on desktops. People don't change the hardware on their desktops very often. So in Linux, once the desktop hardware is working, it generally continues to work fine.

This is not the case with laptops, where I might swap USB devices 3 or 4 times in single meeting. And there is where Linux really leaves a lot to be desired. It's ability to automatically detect a hotswapped USB device and identify it correctly, and "do the right thing" with it, really needs a lot of work.

Reply Score: 1

desktops also have problems
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 21:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The support in Linux for OLD computers is excellent but buy a new one and experience Linux failing to install at all, The system clock running at twice the normal speed, network hanging when dhcp starts, X windows crashing the whole computer when it 'starts', openGL failing to work etc..
You can expect to have to spend hours on the Internet trying to figure out why and how to fix it.
Then you are going to have to use VI a lot.
Yes Linux can still be the fun today on a new desktop ;)

Reply Score: 0

agreed
by flanque on Sat 17th Dec 2005 21:57 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

Exactly. I think there are a number of fundamental problems with Linux and in all honesty the Linux "community" should come together to sponsor a comprehensive, broad analysis of the market (i.e. survey) by a reputable statistical organisation.

I've read many of the comments on this article and the reasons I am seeing for Linux being less than Windows are so varied yet loosly connected.

There is something wrong with Linux which causes people to not want to use it. I'm not certain what it is, I have my suspicions, but am only partial to my own experience (on the server side mostly).

I think the one thing that people want from an OS is to make their life easier, as a whole. You can complain about and show all these examples of Windows crashing and this and that, but for the most part, most, Windows XP (lets emphasise that) is a slick OS that have the most penetration to hardware manufacturers and software vendors. Saying Microsoft used illegal means to get it there is a null argument. The legallity is a different issue. That aside, would you expect anything less from an OS vendor that massive hardware and software support?

Get a proper survey started and lets see exactly what the users out there really want.

My bets are:

1) "What is Linux?"
2) My hardware doesn't work!
3) My software doesn't work!
4) Why would I when Windows works most of the time (har har har)?

Reply Score: 1

RE: agreed
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Dec 2005 23:17 UTC in reply to "agreed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

XP is a slick operating system, however it is by no stretch of the imagination stable. It's true that Windows rules the world of desktops, but applications not used because they cause the system to freeze or crash simply means money thrown away on software. Windows has brought the Desktop to the masses, however, the quality is poor. I have found XP to be very troublesome. When it works, it works great, however, it is too easily corrupted, and requires too much in the way of virus and spyware programs to be used with confidence on the internet. While I understand that their software is propriety, I get very annoyed having to re-register my software after I have had to reinstall my system due to crashes, slow performance(bit-rot according to "tech support") and when a driver install fails. Linux and opensource are not perfect, however, it is a mature OS that would be more widely used if more people were aware of it's benefits. Windows will be dominant for the next several years. However, they must improve their quality to maintain their leadership. When people talk about Linux being written by "hobbyist" remember the remarkable achievements they have made. What will Linux be when greater acceptance brings in an even larger number of programmers?
Paul Sams

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: agreed
by Simba on Sun 18th Dec 2005 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE: agreed"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"XP is a slick operating system, however it is by no stretch of the imagination stable."

This is just FUD. Windows has been very stable ever since switching to the NT kernel. Not one of XP systems has ever blue screened. Not one.

So please get off the "Windows is unstable" fud argument. It's old, outdated, and hasn't been true since Windows 2000.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: agreed
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: agreed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'm glad XP has never blue screened on you. The blue screen was a major factor for me in moving to Linux. I am unintrested in creating FUD for any OS,plenty of that already. I have suffered no viruses under Linux, I don't have to search my files for spyware. With XP, avirus meant data loss & complete loss of what I had not already backed up. I still back up data while using Linux, common sense for any OS. I have found the convience of a "double click install" did not outweigh the benefits of Linux. It has allowed me to spend more time on being productive, and less time with "glitches." As I have said earlier, if you prefer Windows, use Windows. With all due respect, when you say "Windows has been very stable ever since switching to the NT kernel" speaks volumes about a company with billions "in the bank" that quality is not job 1. I use Linux (Debian) not because of several days without a reboot, or some of the other various arguments, I use it because "it just works."
Paul Sams

Reply Score: 0

RE: agreed
by John Nilsson on Sun 18th Dec 2005 01:05 UTC in reply to "agreed"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

I've read many of the comments on this article and the reasons I am seeing for Linux being less than Windows are so varied yet loosly connected.

I think the simple fact is that the market for "linux" is just smaller than the market for windows.

There is something wrong with Linux which causes people to not want to use it. I'm not certain what it is, I have my suspicions, but am only partial to my own experience (on the server side mostly).

The something might be that Windows is the correct sollution to their set of problems. If windows would work for me I would use it. It doesn't, Ubuntu kind of does, so I use Ubuntu, simple as that.

Reply Score: 1

Intel 855 GME
by Simba on Sat 17th Dec 2005 23:51 UTC
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

By the way... The Intel 855 GME graphics drivers for Linux have 9 pages of printed instructions in order to install them. That involve compiling source code, moving files, and hand editing config files.

Hmm... Let's see what I have to do on Windows to install the same drivers: Double click, select "Yes" done.

Reply Score: 1

Hardware companies not cooperative
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I didn't read all the comments so I'm sure I'm repeating someone's words but the fact is there: hardware which is not compatible with linux is not mostly because hardware companies keep every bits of information for themselves.
in ATI's case, they try to give some support themselves but developement is not fast enough. According to them, they cannot give all their source code because of 3rd parties involved.
For NICs, it's the same thing: some chipset makers refuse to diffuse specifications, thus cutting the ability to develop drivers.
Windows gets all the support it wants from hardware vendors so no wonder there isn't a problem about this detail.

Reply Score: 0

RE:RE: i wil agree
by dizzey on Sun 18th Dec 2005 02:38 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

so i wont need a floppy well then tell me how to make windows xp sp2 recognise my hardrive without one my sata raid controller does not have built in support in xp.

and no i will not buy a cheap software raid when i have good hardware raid.

most linux distrubutions find it just fine but windows demands drivers from floppy usb storage or cdrom will not work

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:RE: i wil agree
by MonsieurEvil on Sun 18th Dec 2005 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE:RE: i wil agree"
MonsieurEvil Member since:
2005-12-15

so i wont need a floppy well then tell me how to make windows xp sp2 recognise my hardrive without one my sata raid controller does not have built in support in xp.

I believe the earlier poster's confusion was thinking you meant you needed floppy disks for *every* install of Windows (regardless of drivers). This stopped being true after NT4.0, where it is very unlikely you will need disk drivers on a floppy, unless you are using certain disk systems that did not go through hardware certification with MS and get added to the default drivers.

and no i will not buy a cheap software raid when i have good hardware raid.

Care to tell us which one?

most linux distrubutions find it just fine but windows demands drivers from floppy usb storage or cdrom will not work

Which Windows? If you were installing a brand new SATA-based RAID controller on an XP or 2000 machine, this would be completely understandable, as those OS's were written 4/6 years ago. Was one of those distro's built from 2000's binaries? Doubtful. People aren't going to argue that in a fight of drivers, there are far more for Windows.

Reply Score: 1

This is an interesting thesis, but...
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 03:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't see any figures. I stick Linux on lots of machines, new and old, at work, home, and on friend's machines. I've only once found a device that didn't plug-and-play, and that was a card that I had to download the madwifi driver for.

My experience so far has been better in Linux than Windows in this respect since Windows only seems to be simple if you install an OEM version shipped with your system by a vendor with the appropriate hardware drivers preconfigued. Outside of that, I've so far had better luck with Linux than Win2K and XP. (XP incidentally, didn't get along with the vendor supplied XP driver for the same card I had to download the Linux madwifi driver for).

I think the perception that there is a problem is greater than the problem itself.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Isn't it amazing how well so many of those "old" computers work when they have a Linux system installed?
I wonder how many people have purchased new computers after their "old one" is just too slow. Cookies, spyware, and old and broken files will really handicap a PC.
Paul Sams

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

> Cookies...

Cookies do not slow down your system. Nor can they be used to spy on you. I don't know how or when the rumors about the evils of cookies got started, but yes, I do know of the rumors. None of them are true.

You might want to read up on exactly what cookies can and cannot do on your system.

In a nutshell:

* They cannot read from the file system or write to it.

* They cannot execute code.

* They cannot gather data on what you are doing. They can only store small amounts of data sent to you from a Web site.

* Your browser will only send a cookie to the same site that it originally got it from. In otherwords, another site cannot spy on you by retrieving a cookie it did not send you.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Cookies will not slow down your system. Spyware(which I brought up after cookies) will, as will broken links from crashes, uninstalled programs, fragmented harddrives(yes,even now) affect Windows Performance. While it is true that users should perform maintainence to any OS by removing spyware, defragmenting hard drives etc, I have seen people discard good computers that only needed maintainence, or a reinstall of Windows. I have done these steps for them on more than one occasion when they were showing off their "new" computer (the diplomatic "may I see if I can get your old one to work well enough to run your children's games on?). Many are supprised to see the "old computer working much better with a fresh, reinstalled Windows system. I do not "hate" windows, I just like Linux better for a number of reasons. I use Debian, because I find too many Linux Distributions are too quick to include the "latest and greatest software" at the expense of stability & reliability. That's a bad move for any OS. Using "buggy" software with any OS hurts it's adoption. I started with XP in 2002, at $500.00 for XP Professional, I expected stability "out of the box, not getting closer to stability in 2005, and not as they are getting ready to introduce a "new" system (Vista). I would love to see Windows become stable since it is so widely used in the buisness world, and when companies' "computers are down", we all pay. Microsoft has the ability to be rock solid stable. They just have to make the decision to do so. They should not "fall in love" with security in 2004, for a product they introduced in 2001. I prefer to decide if I want cookies on my system, which I admit you can do with Windows. Spyware is another problem in itself, and not the fault of Microsoft. However most spyware targets windows,since windows "rules the world." Even if Linux was more vulnerable to spyware, it's default setting of requiring an administrator access to change programs provides an additional layer of protection. You can have an administrator in windows,but by default, anyone can alter the system. While not a bad thing in a household enviroment, it is too vulnerable for the internet. From what I have read, Vista will be incorporating some of these features. You shoul also realize since the introduction of SP2 in 2004, that XP is also becoming more "ticky" about haphazard software installs from the internet.
Paul Sams

Reply Score: 0

Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

Certainly, spyware slows down your system (and I did not take issue with your assertion that spyware slowed down systems). The only part I took issue with was your including of cookies in the list, which I don't know why you included.

Reply Score: 1

depends on the hardware
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 16:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hardware designed for windows obviously works with windows. But try connecting hardware designed for Apple or Solaris to your Windows machine, and it will most likley fail. You don't blame Windows for that, as the hardware/drivers were not designed for Windows.
In the same way you shouldn't be surprised that a printer that was specifically designed to work with Windows (I know it sounds stupid, but it is getting common) does not work with Linux.
In practice Linux does support a lot of hardware.
Out of the box it has more drivers then Windows, but Windows can be suplemented with driver-disks from the manufacturer.

The last Windows PC I had to install required special drivers for its chipset and more drivers for the NIC.
The easiest way to get the drivers to the system was to boot Knoppix, and download the drivers from there.

Given a random computer, chances are that Linux (eg Knoppix) can give you a working desktop (keyboard, mouse, graphical screen, sound, internet) within 5 minutes. It may not be using all hardware optimal, but it will result in something usefull.
Windows takes a least an half hour of installing before you can do anything. Most likely you'll spend an extra hour for installing drivers and software.

In some areas (mobo chipsets, nics, scsi cards) Linux is clearly superior, in other areas (scanners, webcams) Windows has an advantage.
CAPSLOCK2000

Reply Score: 0

RE: depends on the hardware
by Simba on Sun 18th Dec 2005 17:19 UTC in reply to "depends on the hardware"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Hardware designed for windows obviously works with windows. But try connecting hardware designed for Apple or Solaris to your Windows machine, and it will most likley fail. You don't blame Windows for that, as the hardware/drivers were not designed for Windows."

Again though, the average user doesn't care about this explination. That's what I keep pointing out, but for some reason, many in the Linux community don't seem to get. They don't care about explinations as to why it doesn't work. All they care about is "The new hardware I bought off the shelf at Best Buy doesn't work, or requires a lot of screwing around to make it work."

I'm not blaming Linux. I'm saying it's a problem that keeps Linux from achieving widerspread success on the desktop. Whether you blame Linux, hardware manufactuerers, or Santa Clause is irrelevant to the end user. All that's relevant is that the robofrobinater card they bought off the shelf from Best Buy doesn't work with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

funny
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Dec 2005 20:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It is funny to read all the printer, video cards, modem issues, when Linux has still problems with keyboards. Is there a decent driver so that I can use my keyboard with accented chars, and dead keys?

Reply Score: 0