Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:09 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Linux "Today, you can do everything you want with a Linux desktop, except play the latest games. Even there, Linux is catching up. So, why do only a handful of people run Linux instead of Windows? Here are my top-four reasons why Windows wins and Linux loses."
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:23 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

And last but not less, not presure upon vendors to release source code.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by archiesteel on Fri 5th Jan 2007 15:09 UTC in reply to "..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

And last but not less, not presure upon vendors to release source code.

Yes, because that is clearly linked to desktop adoption...not!

I'm trying to see how you arrived at this conclusion, and frankly I just can't. In fact, one could easily argue that having good open-source drivers for 3D cards would *increase* desktop adoption.

Seriously, that comment of yours completely misses the mark.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by DrillSgt on Sat 6th Jan 2007 01:11 UTC in reply to "..."
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"And last but not less, not presure upon vendors to release source code."

Why should the likes of Adobe put themselves out of business? By opening the code, a software company has put one foot in the grave. Although, I for one would be happy to pay for software that works, closed or open, but unfortunately too many OSS advocates want everything to be free as in beer as well as in freedom. As for hardware, the same deal. I am not a programmer, so therefore don't care if I can see the code or not.

Reply Score: 2

Sigh...
by tux68 on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:24 UTC
tux68
Member since:
2006-10-24

From where I sit, it's really pretty simple. You can be ideologically pure and only use open-source software and have distributions that won't work well for many people, or you can include some proprietary drivers and firmware and produce distributions that will work better for most users.

It seems that those who continue to parrot this line of thinking have not stopped to ask WHY we need to attract more users to Linux sooner rather than later. As open source solutions continue to provide more functionality, they will attract more users naturally. Why should Linux jeopardize the very foundation on which it was built in order to attract these users before it is ready to service them properly? It seems the proponents of closed solutions are so fixated on increasing the Linux head count they just don't care about the _cost_ of their suggestions. They _could_ use their obvious interest in Linux to promote its open source foundation and improve the number of areas fully supported by open source to slowly increase adoption. Instead they focus on this cult like religious zealotry of mass adoption at any cost. It would be nice if they dropped this proselytizing and were a bit more pragmatic about Linux adoption.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sigh...
by arielb on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:51 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

linux is just an operating 'system.' not some open source ideology. Lots of people use it because it's an alternative to microsoft with its own unique way of doing things. It's also free$. I'm sure most linux users have no problem with closed source games and hardware, including the intel cpu.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sigh...
by tux68 on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

It's not about ideology. The very foundation of Linux is the open source methodology and ecosystem which is directly responsible for Linux being where it is today. Users who care about Linux should do what they can to respect and promote the process that gave them the operating system they're using. Is it so much to ask?

Undermining the very thing that makes Linux important is going to have negative effects which hurt users in the long run. It's important that we let users know how Linux managed to become as strong as it is today, and ask them to respect and promote open source. Users who don't care about open source have lots of other operating systems to choose from.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Sigh...
by ralph on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

It's not about ideology.
It isn't?

The very foundation of Linux is the open source methodology and ecosystem which is directly responsible for Linux being where it is today.
Hm, Linus Torvalds, who also is in a way responsible for where linux is today, disagrees here. For example, he himself had no problems using closed source tools. So you're still sure it's not about ideology?

Undermining the very thing that makes Linux important is going to have negative effects which hurt users in the long run.
I'm sorry, but that isn't really an argument. At the very least you should explain why it would undermine Linux and not just assume it does.

It's important that we let users know how Linux managed to become as strong as it is today, and ask them to respect and promote open source.
Why?

Users who don't care about open source have lots of other operating systems to choose from.
So now you even want to exclude people from using a free operating system just because they disagree with you?
Jeebus and you got the nerve to tell us it's not about ideology? Amazing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Sigh...
by tux68 on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

It's not about ideology.
It isn't?


No it isn't. It's about supporting the _reality_ of how Linux came to be as strong as it is today. By people supporting open source.

Hm, Linus Torvalds, who also is in a way responsible for where linux is today, disagrees here. For example, he himself had no problems using closed source tools. So you're still sure it's not about ideology?

Linus isn't immune from being wrong and he was very wrong about his use of Bitkeeper as was ultimately born out by its demise and all the problems it caused when it was ripped out from underneath the community.

But this really has nothing to do with ideology; there's nothing wrong with proprietary solutions and nothing wrong with people who choose to use them. This is about promoting the ecosystem and methodology that has worked in a practical manner to produce Linux and make it what it is today. People are _mindlessly_ saying that it must change, but then give the flimsiest of reasons, like panic about mass adoption etc.

I'm sorry, but that isn't really an argument. At the very least you should explain why it would undermine Linux and not just assume it does.

It undermines the support for developers who need access to source. It sends a message that it's not worth supporting those open source developers and that it's not worth doing the least little thing to show some appreciation and ensure that the process that created Linux in the first place continues and thrives.

So now you even want to exclude people from using a free operating system just because they disagree with you?
Jeebus and you got the nerve to tell us it's not about ideology? Amazing.


You can read whatever you want into the words I used. This isn't about excluding anybody, this is about being honest about where Linux is today and about the best way forward. What good does it do to make Linux accessible to a few more people today, if it ultimately leads to greater frustration and rejection of Linux by those users.

The problem is this religious ideology that Linux must be made ready for mass adoption today or perish.

Edited 2007-01-04 22:49

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Sigh...
by ralph on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

No it isn't. It's about supporting the _reality_ of how Linux came to be as strong as it is today. By people supporting open source.

Well, first of, it's your opinion, not the reality. Second, not insisting on only open source is not the same as not supporting open source, though you contiuosly try to act like it is.

It undermines the support for developers who need access to source.

Well, developers just need to do what they do now, not support what they can't support.

It sends a message that it's not worth supporting those open source developers and that it's not worth doing the least little thing to show some appreciation and ensure that the process that created Linux in the first place continues and thrives.

How so? So you are seriously telling me that using closed source software (as for example Linus did) is equivalent to not doing the least little thing to show appreciation? And you are seriously trying to tell me that this is not ideology? You must be joking.

What good does it do to make Linux accessible to a few more people today, if it ultimately leads to greater frustration and rejection of Linux by those users.

Again, you did not give one argument why this should ultimately lead to this. You just act as if it was self evident that it would, which simply is not the case.

The problem is this religious ideology that Linux must be made ready for mass adoption today or perish.
Nobody said that.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Sigh...
by tux68 on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh..."
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

Well, first of, it's your opinion, not the reality. Second, not insisting on only open source is not the same as not supporting open source, though you contiuosly try to act like it is.

Well first off, everything you've said is your opinion not reality; try to be rational or there is no sense having a discussion. Secondly, promoting a proprietary/Linux hybrid creates an ethos which says "accept proprietary drivers", "don't hold out or pressure vendors to create open spec/source hardware". You see such arguments on OS/News all the time, and you'll likely see them in this very thread. It reduces market pressures that would help promote more open source solutions and contribute to the ecosystem that created Linux in the first place. You'd have to be pretty blind to not see how that can have a deleterious effect on the ability of open source developers to do what they do.

Creating an environment where hardware vendors see that Linux users care enough about its developers to reject proprietary solutions will ultimately pay dividends.

Again, this has nothing more to do with ideology than people who think the best thing for Linux is to embrace proprietary drivers. This has everything to do about ensuring that Linux continues to thrive and be an important operating system.

Edited 2007-01-04 23:33

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Sigh...
by ralph on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Well first off, everything you've said is your opinion not reality;
The point is, I didn't try to act as if my opinion was, in your own words "the _reality_".

try to be rational or there is no sense having a discussion.
Well, I think restraing from ad hominem attacks is also quite important for a discussion...

Secondly, promoting a proprietary/Linux hybrid creates an ethos which says "accept proprietary drivers", "don't hold out or pressure vendors to create open spec/source hardware".
Who's talking about a hybrid. Don't be such a drama queen, this is about some closed source software running on linux, not making linux a closed source/open source hybrid.

It reduces market pressures that would help promote more open source solutions and contribute to the ecosystem that created Linux in the first place.
On the contrary, more users puts more pressure on hardware vendors to support linux and to support it in a way that linux users prefer, that is with open source software. This will ultimately benefit open source.

Also, more users means more people that can and will contribute to open source. Again, a benefit for open source.

Again, this has nothing more to do with ideology than people who think the best thing for Linux is to embrace proprietary drivers. This has everything to do about ensuring that Linux continues to thrive and be an important operating system.

No, arguing that closed source drivers are bad for linux has nothing to do with ideology. However, telling users who don't care about open source to use an other OS, as you did, has.

Edited 2007-01-04 23:54

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Sigh...
by arielb on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

What's going to happen is with no closed sourced drivers allowed in linux, you'll just give more to Microsoft. 100% closed source wins because 98% open source isn't enough for you.

And I'd rather have a closed source driver from nvidia than even an open source app by Microsoft because I know Microsoft will figure out a way to use even the GPL to crush the marketplace. To me, Microsoft is the real issue and not open source. It's just a means to an end. Software choice.

Edited 2007-01-05 00:49

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Again, this has nothing more to do with ideology than people who think the best thing for Linux is to embrace proprietary drivers. This has everything to do about ensuring that Linux continues to thrive and be an important operating system."

Linux will never become an important DESKTOP OS without the users, and to get the users, you need the devices, your arguments are ALL ideology. It is not practical at this time to consider further growth without continuing to use closed source drivers, as right now, it is the hardware companies in control.

When Linux has a critical mass of users, then the community will be able to force the issue, until then, either the users suffer, or the ideology, and I vote the ideology, as I am a user myself

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Sigh...
by arielb on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"Users who don't care about open source have lots of other operating systems to choose from."

Name one other alternative OS for PC's that is a final release and actively maintained. On a PC it's basically either Windows or linux or you get a mac.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sigh...
by Fransexy on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
Fransexy Member since:
2005-07-29

Name one other alternative OS for PC's that is a final release and actively maintained. On a PC it's basically either Windows or linux or you get a mac.

BEOS/ZETA? QNX? Solaris? BSD? not one but four ;) and without thinking a lot (if i think surely i would find more)

Edited 2007-01-04 23:08

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Sigh...
by raynevandunem on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

AROS?

At least, once they get Mozilla ported to it... >_<

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"BEOS/ZETA? QNX? Solaris? BSD? not one but four ;) and without thinking a lot (if i think surely i would find more)"

BEOS/ZETA is almost useless today, it has no where near the apps that Linux/Windows/BSD has, and isn't even entirly finished.

BSD works well, but if you want it to work out of the box, you have to use PC-BSD or something similar, I use FreeBSD at home, and it is not for beginners, and neither is OpenBSD or NetBSD. PC-BSD is coming along nicely, I really like 1.2 and 1.3 looks awesome.

Solaris is not for beginners either, i wouldn't want my Mom running OpenSolaris.

Point is, these alternatives you site are not true alternatives for Joe Sixpack, not at this point. PC-BSD and other FreeBSD derivitives are getting there, but no normal user has even heard of them

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sigh...
by KenJackson on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

PC-BSD

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Sigh...
by rcsteiner on Fri 5th Jan 2007 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

OS/2 would have fit that description until last Saturday, when IBM dropped the last of its support.

eComStation 1.2 might fit the description now, at least for some of its components. I don't know if IBM is still generating/fixing APARs against OS/2 from SSI...

Edited 2007-01-05 20:40

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sigh...
by phoehne on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:06 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

Driver issues are the biggest PITA. I didn't run Linux on my laptop for the longest time because it had a Broadcom wireless chip. I switched to an Atheros PCMCIA card, so I could use all 64 glorious bits on my CPU. (There was no 64 bit windows driver I could steal). If ATI, Atheros, or NVidia are willing to post drivers, I don't see why distros need to be categorically opposed to providing some degree of support.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Sigh...
by glarepate on Fri 5th Jan 2007 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

I don't see why distros need to be categorically opposed to providing some degree of support.

A distro provider has control of the product they are offering. They built it, they maintain it, they improve it. Their expertise is the value added to the thousands of individual pieces and packages that makes the distribution into something you want or, for that matter, don't want if their product doesn't appeal to you.

How do you support a binary blob [that you don't have the source for]? If it works then there is no support issue. If it doesn't the distro provider is caught between the users and the vendor.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:07 UTC in reply to "Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Linux will never be ready to service it's users properly if it has no users, idealogically speaking, if no one cares at all about your philosophy, then you have no movement, and right now, that is the case with Linux.

Normal users are not using Linux, therefore, hardware companies have no incentive to build opensource drivers. If you have the mindshare, and the marketshare, you can then begin to dictate what kinds of drivers can be "certified" for Linux. Until then, users either accept lower levels of functionality, (which they won't) or they will stay with Windows, or buy a Mac.

I agree that we should have true opensource drivers for Linux, but until that happens, I still want all the value possible from my hardware, and right now, that means binary, closed source drivers. Only the powerful can dictate terms

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sigh...
by SomeGuy on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh..."
SomeGuy Member since:
2006-03-20

And if you have a shitload of users that don't care about open source drivers, how does this increase your leverage?

I'd say that it, in fact, greatly decreases it, since now you have not only opposition from the hardware vendors, you have a mass of howling users complaining when you try to make open source drivers.

The only way that a large number of users will help with getting open source drivers is if they're willing to loudly complain about the lack of them to the companies providing the drivers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Fri 5th Jan 2007 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The users won't howl when thier drivers work, they don't care if they are OSS or not, they just want thier stuff to work.

You won't get the users at all if their hardware doesn't work, regardless of the openness of the drivers, but when you have the users, then the Opensource community will have the strength to dictate terms, not before

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sigh...
by tux68 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

The users won't howl when thier drivers work, they don't care if they are OSS or not, they just want thier stuff to work.

And that is _exactly_ the point. Users don't care because they're getting the wrong message. They're getting the message that there is no _need_ to care. But it would be foolish to think that you can dispose of the very open source process that created Linux in the first place and have it magically continue to be successful. Therefore, we need to educate users and make sure that they understand the process that created Linux and ask for them to support the methodologies that gave them Linux to use in the _first_ place.


You won't get the users at all if their hardware doesn't work, regardless of the openness of the drivers, but when you have the users, then the Opensource community will have the strength to dictate terms, not before

You just got through saying users won't care about open source so how is that going to strengthen the community? Your arguments aren't consistent. The only way to strengthen the open source community, is to educate and encourage support for the open source development process and products.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Sigh...
by BluenoseJake on Sun 7th Jan 2007 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Normal users will never get the message, because they are not developers. They will never get it, and it's time the OSS community realizes that. Normal users use computers as TOOLs, that's it, they don't care about the ideology of the thing, or wether a driver is OSS or proprietary, they just want thier shit to work. Depending on normal users to adopt your belief system when they couldn't care less is noble, but misguided.

Get the mindshare, and then when users already love linux, then force the hardware companied to open up thier drivers, until then, OSS does not have the power

Reply Score: 1

Not a Popularity Contest
by zeroth404 on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:27 UTC
zeroth404
Member since:
2006-11-02

A lot of people overlook this fact, but it simply doesn't matter how many people use Linux. Popularity is worthless, especially if the users are people like "my grandma" that can't contribute to making it a better OS. Let's not forget the fact that NOBODY can contribute to Windows. Let dear old grandma use what she wants, but why should it matter which OS is preferred by majority?

Having said that, there is no "winner" or "loser" because there is no contest, and to say otherwise is foolish.

Edited 2007-01-04 21:29

Reply Score: 5

RE: Not a Popularity Contest
by moleskine on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:04 UTC in reply to "Not a Popularity Contest"
moleskine Member since:
2005-11-05

A lot of people overlook this fact, but it simply doesn't matter how many people use Linux. Popularity is worthless, especially if the users are people like "my grandma" that can't contribute to making it a better OS.

Of course it matters how many people use Linux. If the platform's audience fails to grow or even shrinks, the whole Linux project will start to emit the whiff of decay. Bright minds and developers will drop away and the talent that any project needs to flourish will go elsewhere for thrills and spills. A vicious downward spiral will have started, and once started these things are very hard to stop. Your granny has nothing to do with it. The "popularity is worthless" argument is a nice bit of puffing and preening among hardcore users, but there aren't nearly enough of them to go round.

As for "nobody can contribute to Windows", why not ask the folks at Mozilla Firefox? Last year they made more than 50 million dollars from open source software, much of it off Windows users (via the search engines). To put that in perspective, it's about the same that Novell made on their entire Linux operation.

I guess next week we'll be reading "Five reaons Linux wins and Windows loses" or some similar saloon-bar opinionating.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Not a Popularity Contest
by raver31 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Not a Popularity Contest"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess next week we'll be reading "Five reaons Linux wins and Windows loses" or some similar saloon-bar opinionating.

Sorry buddy, but that is a long way off...

Vista has not hit the public yet, give it a week after that ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not a Popularity Contest
by zeroth404 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Not a Popularity Contest"
zeroth404 Member since:
2006-11-02

It seems to me that dedicated Linux kernel/distro devs are plentiful. I can't even count how many distros there are, let alone how many different kernel trees.

Linux is in no way in danger. In fact, its very healthy and gaining vitality every year. There is absolutely no reason to fuss over its popularity, let alone say it has "lost" a popularity contest.

Obviosuly, Linux requires a lot of dedicated developers and users, but to say:

if (Windows.userCount > Linux.userCount)
{
Winner=Windows;
Loser=Linux;
}else{
Winner=Linux;
Loser=Windows;
}

is simply ridiculous.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not a Popularity Contest
by jptros on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:07 UTC in reply to "Not a Popularity Contest"
jptros Member since:
2005-08-26

You can certainly hack up windows in lots of ways including writing custom software (free or not). Not being able to modify the source code to the operating system does mean you can't contribute back to the end users or even corporations running the system. In terms of programming, the win32 api provides a lot of functionality that can allow you to modify aspects or features of the system you may not expect to be accessible.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not a Popularity Contest
by phoehne on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:15 UTC in reply to "Not a Popularity Contest"
phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

In a way it is. If Linux had a 25% desktop market share, with 100% free and open distros, companies like Broadcom wouldn't be the pricks they are with drivers. Companies like Dell and HP would make sure that 100% of their lineup worked with either system out of the box. I remember when Apple had about 25% of the PC market and any major piece of software had an Apple port or a high-quality Apple equivalent. Look at the server space, where Linux is fairly popular. Several vendors have linux versions of their databases and tools.

Reply Score: 4

Good article
by ralph on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:30 UTC
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

I think he summed up the issue pretty well.

One tidbit though:
"Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth claims that there are at least 8 million Ubuntu Linux desktops alone out there. I wish I could believe that number, but I don't."

Well, Shuttleworth claimed at least 8 million users, not desktops alone.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good article
by djst on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:35 UTC in reply to "Good article"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

One tidbit though:
"Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth claims that there are at least 8 million Ubuntu Linux desktops alone out there. I wish I could believe that number, but I don't."


Shuttleworth probably meant 8 million virtual desktops, which translates to roughly 2 million users. :-P

Reply Score: 2

Not the hardware argument again.
by Caspian on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:34 UTC
Caspian
Member since:
2006-01-01

Listen, I have a brand new Core2Duo system. Ubuntu, and fedora both found all of my hardware straight up when everything was said and done.

The only thing I installed myself afterwards was the nvidia driver.


With windows, I had to install:

1) Audio
2) Lan
3) More lan (I have two lan cards, one on board, one pci)
4) chipset drivers


You want hardware support? Then yeah, I guess windows has it, but not out of the box. Linux has it out of the box, and more importantly, has a TON of old drivers for older hardware also. Some going back to win9x.

Linux is fine for hardware support.

Reply Score: 5

Kelly Rush Member since:
2005-06-30

Now look at it this way, if the NVIDIA had been bundled by default, or as an option at the end of installation, you wouldn't have had to install anything, period.

I think those in the Linux community who are refusing to allow these drivers to be included and installed at installation time are doing a serious disservice to the Linux community. I know they think by excluding these drivers, they will force NVIDIA to open-source their drivers, but the fact of the matter is, they are not.

If NVIDIA opens their drivers in the next five years, it will be as a competitive move against AMD (ATI). If AMD does not open-source the specs for their hardware/drivers, then neither will NVIDIA.

Reply Score: 4

arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

I hate politics. Users should get a system that has the best drivers. One day open source drivers will be better but why deprive the user when that day hasn't come yet?

Reply Score: 0

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Because for the supported hardware that day has come. And, by and large, the list of supported Linux hardware is pretty close to the list of quality hardware...

I often tell people to check hardware compatibility lists for Linux when they ask what brand of device to buy. It's just one more sign that either:
1.) The vendor is putting money behind the product and supporting multiple platforms. -- or --
2.) Smart geeks like the hardware and wrote their own drivers.

So why no good graphics drivers? Take a wild guess...

Reply Score: 5

John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Depends on what side of the fence you are on.

If you work on FLOSS to provide technology to people, sure working withe proprietary software will be just as fine (given it will be a little harder to work on as you don't have access to source).

If you work on FLOSS to promote freedom on the other hand you would hardly advance your goal best by spending your precious time working for free for those who takes freedom away.

Reply Score: 4

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually they'll likely just make intel graphics a lot more popular with Linux users... Which is fine with me!

Or they'll push open graphics driver development, which is also fine. The Nvidia driver is ok, but it's still fairly buggy and the ATI driver is unusable.

And there are distributions that ship nvidia drivers.

Reply Score: 4

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

If they do, it is violating the distribution terms of the GPL. I'm quite sure that you cannot distribute GPL products with proprietary products if their intended purpose is to be used together.

This is why Kororaa Linux was forced to stop distributing their LiveCD with the NVIDIA and ATI drivers, and stop distributing all violating ISO images.

Reply Score: 1

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

This is partially correct. The GPL does not prevents one from shipping proprietary software together with GPLed stuff. You just cannot link against GPL software (libs) nor use GPL code on non-GPL software as the result would have to be also licensed under the GPL. Thatīs all.

Thatīs the reason that the Kororaa guys had to pull up their distro with AIGLX/XGL/Compiz/whatever enabled by default.

You can and in fact a few distros do ship propritary bits here and there.

Your previous post along these same lines was factually correct therefore I modded it up +1.

Reply Score: 2

Iron Member since:
2006-12-15

[quote].....and the ATI driver is unusable.[/quote]


Not true at all.
Bugs, sure some,unusable,no!

Today also,most livecd distributions have graphical installers and one click installation of graphics card drivers.More and more are going this route to help those that want an easy fully functional desktop enviroment/OS that works.Some just do not want to learn how linux works,they just want to be able to do what they did in windows.
The easier Linux gets for these types of people,the more will flock to it.
Games is a major problem for the gamer types as well.

Reply Score: 1

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

No, they don't have a choice to include it or not, they can't include it because it violates the distribution terms of the GPL. This is why the Kororaa Linux distro -- which originally shipped as an XGL/Compiz LiveCD and provided both the NVIDIA and ATI drivers -- was forced to remove them from their distro and stop distributing all violating ISO images.

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I think those in the Linux community who are refusing to allow these drivers to be included and installed at installation time are doing a serious disservice to the Linux community.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that allowing these drivers is, you know, illegal.

Reply Score: 1

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

> Linux is fine for hardware support.

No. I prefer downloading drivers and having my exotic hardware to work rather than having a bunch of drivers, none of which can support my hardware.

This is why drivers in Lunux sucks: It ships with drivers, but these drivers are limited to the most common hardware. Windows ships with less drivers but you still can find 99% of the missing drivers on the web or on the CD-ROM that came with your web cam.

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You want hardware support? Then yeah, I guess windows has it, but not out of the box.

Who gives a shit if it works out of the box or not? As long as I can go to the vendor's website and download a driver, that's more than enough for me. I usually do that anyway.
While it's true that Linux is more likely to work (esp out of the box) with a 15yo SCSI hard drive controller that you've got stored in the closet, it doesn't do quite as well with the bleeding-edge stuff. If it doesn't work out of the box on Linux, and there's no driver to download from the vendor, how the hell do you make it work, assuming you even can make it work?

Reply Score: 2

popey Member since:
2006-05-24

People deploying an OS to multiple machines don't want to have to install loads of 3rd party crud like drivers. On Windows getting a "good" build takes ages.

Windows install, add office (or whatever flavour), drivers for LAN, sound, graphics, printer and so on, acrobat etc etc

All that can be done in one hit with most modern linux distributions. You can be up and running with all of the above in about 30 mins, from a blank machine to a running desktop. No joke, no mess, no 3rd party websites, no "register to download driver", no "give me your asset tag number" mess at all.

I tried vista on a 1 year old spanky Dell laptop, it couldn't even find the audio hardware. Ubuntu found everything, wireless, bluetooth, SD-card slot, the lot, one reboot, all done.

Reply Score: 2

Colonel Panic Member since:
2005-07-28

Who gives a shit if it works out of the box or not? As long as I can go to the vendor's website and download a driver, that's more than enough for me. I usually do that anyway.
While it's true that Linux is more likely to work (esp out of the box) with a 15yo SCSI hard drive controller that you've got stored in the closet, it doesn't do quite as well with the bleeding-edge stuff. If it doesn't work out of the box on Linux, and there's no driver to download from the vendor, how the hell do you make it work, assuming you even can make it work?


You mean like InfiniBand, AOE, and stuff like that? I love how uniformed people can post away without actually finding out the facts with an "open" mind and even if you are from the Windows crowd, saying "Hey, that particular feature is really nice" and visa-versa.

Reply Score: 1

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You mean like InfiniBand, AOE, and stuff like that

No, it's simpler than that. Linux doesn't recognize my bluetooth card, my wireless adapter, or my webcam. No drivers exist. Unless I use Windows, I have to sacrifice that capability, which sucks.

Reply Score: 1

jofallon Member since:
2005-11-15

I have a brand new Core2Duo system also, with the Intel G965 chipset on an Intel motherboard. Ubuntu 6.10 can hardly recognize any of the hardware, and will boot only if I use an SATA DVD drive. It's pretty much useless for anything. Fedora is the same. In a few months the chipset will doubtless be supported, with a newer kernel, but for now, it's windows only (and lot of add-on drivers at that).

Now the 975 chipset is a different matter, no doubt. But systems with that went for a bit more than I wanted to spend.

Reply Score: 1

Oy.
by ma_d on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:59 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

So people aren't using linux because:
1.) They aren't.
2.) The vendor's don't ship it.
3.) The hardware producers don't support it.
4.) It's hard to install stuff.

So.
1.) No momentum against momentum.
2.) The vendors are mean.
3.) The hardware producers are cheap.
4.) OS X is popular (cause it just can't get easier than .app, sorry folks. and there are people who can't figure out .app).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Oy.
by Gryzor on Fri 5th Jan 2007 10:13 UTC in reply to "Oy."
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

4.) OS X is popular (cause it just can't get easier than .app, sorry folks. and there are people who can't figure out .app).

Yet there are more people who can't install anything on linux. That's simple fact. Installing an .app under OS X could be really "confusing" if:

a) You've never done it before
b) The ".dmg" has no fancy backround and/or visual instructions and/or a shortcut to Applications folder.
c) All of the above.

But the truth is, after you've done it once, you know what to do, click, drag, drop, done.

I am not (and I repeat: I am NOT) saying that drag/drop app is the best (or the worst for the matter); having used Windows, LInux and Mac OS X, *most* of the time, I find OS X's app much more convenient. But that is just me.

Reply Score: 1

win?
by grable on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:02 UTC
grable
Member since:
2006-11-24

Why does Linux have to win at all?

Isnt it enough just being there as an alternative?

Reply Score: 5

RE: win?
by ma_d on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:07 UTC in reply to "win?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Yea but that's not as much fun. People who like something want to see it succeed and a lot of those people see popularity as success.

Reply Score: 2

RE: win?
by popey on Fri 5th Jan 2007 01:21 UTC in reply to "win?"
popey Member since:
2006-05-24

It doesn't necessarily have to win (if you are measuring by bums on seats or market share), but it does have to get a certain level before *some* people take it seriously. If BSD, Linux, OSX and Windows had a split 25% desktop I don't believe all games would only be available for DirectX. I also don't believe we would have the situation with ATI and NVidia being the way they are with their "intellectual property" (gah).

Ok, so reality check, we're not there, we're nowhere near there and chances are we never will be. Nothing wrong with striving for it though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: win?
by sorpigal on Fri 5th Jan 2007 22:31 UTC in reply to "win?"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Isnt it enough just being there as an alternative?

We must win because we can't afford to lose. Yes, it is enough for Linux to just exist. For now. The longer Linux is 'just an alternative' the easier it becomes for proprietary systems to solidify their hold and disrespect people.

Free software is morally sound, proprietary software is not. Proprietary software is totalitarian: if we don't win it takes over everything. Co-existance is fine by free software, but not possible long-term. We must win because we can't abide the alternative.

Reply Score: 1

easy for granny-hard for me
by arielb on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:05 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

"But, once you move beyond the basics, though, it gets more complicated."

That is why linux can be made real easy for someone with simple needs but it was too hard for me. It's as if the whole UI with its nice icons is just a facade and held together with lots of spit and bubblegum buried underneath. Who wants to spend time with "repositories" "package manager" "universe, multiverse" "apt-get"?

Reply Score: 0

RE: easy for granny-hard for me
by jimcooncat on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "easy for granny-hard for me"
jimcooncat Member since:
2006-07-24

"But, once you move beyond the basics, though, it gets more complicated."

I'd append that with "... but at least it's POSSIBLE."

'Who wants to spend time with "repositories" "package manager" "universe, multiverse" "apt-get"?'

And counter that with "Who wants to spend time trying to figure out if an application download contains malware?"

From the article: "Our problem is that we have half-a-dozen very different "easy" ways to install programs, like apt, YaST, and yum."

If you stick with one distro, you won't have so many.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: easy for granny-hard for me
by arielb on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE: easy for granny-hard for me"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

it wasn't always possible for me. The package manager broke a lot and I had to spend a lot of time on irc copying things into terminal. And it still didn't work. You would think if you want firefox, you go to the website and click on download firefox for linux and it will install but nooo

Use download.com and no worries about viruses.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You would think if you want firefox, you go to the website and click on download firefox for linux and it will install but nooo

Actually, it does:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html

Oh, and IRC? Who still uses IRC, nevermind to get Linux help??

Use a relatively stable distro (Ubuntu Edgy) and you won't get any problems with dependencies. I've been using Ubuntu for a year and I have yet to have a single dependency problem. Not one.

Reply Score: 2

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Oh, and IRC? Who still uses IRC, nevermind to get Linux help??

Are you kidding me?!?!? I use IRC all the time (through Konversation and BitchX) and there is a reason that X-Chat and mIRC are two of the most popular applications on its respective platforms. ;)

And if you go to freenode and join a channel of a distro (say, #debian) or project (say, #kde), you will see tons of people asking for help and being helped all the time.

Where have you been all this time? ;)

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Color me surprised...I though IRC was only used by Windows Zombie Bots these days. ;-)

I didn't express myself clearly...what I meant to say is that there are plenty of other ways to obtain help online for Ubuntu, such as ubuntuforums.org and ubuntuguide.org

I have to admit I have never used IRC for online help, but perhaps I should give it a try next time I hit a snag (such as Beryl interfering with suspend-to-RAM...)

Reply Score: 2

RE: easy for granny-hard for me
by KenJackson on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:06 UTC in reply to "easy for granny-hard for me"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Windows has a similar thing--they just call them "updates".

Many "easy"-minded people ignore all the updates and run Windows the way they received it in-spite of the dangers. You can do the same with GNU/Linux if you really want to--just never update it.

Reply Score: 2

RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

Windows Update has pretty much *nothing* to do with the package managers: it covers ONLY the update of what MS wants to update, and even then only of the software they provide themselves.

How do you know a new version of your ApplicationX is out? How do you upgrade?

On windows there are only 2 ways (that I know: if you know better, please tell me. I've been searching for it for ages now).

1 - You spend time going to the vendor site or to some windows software website (normally caotic and full of banners, popups and whatnot), and discover (who knows when) that a new version is out. Then you download it, and figure how to upgrade: will you simply launch the insaller? Will you need to uninstall before, and then reinstall? Who knows. It's not normally written anywhere. Then maybe you reboot your machine. Repead xNumber of software involved.

2 - The application itself checks from time to time if a new version is avaliable. This is a horrendously inefficent way of doing this, and means a lot of softwares can call home whenever they want. Plus, they often install service like applications, maybe even placing annoying icons in your already crowded systray.

On Linux?

yum update

I read what's new, and then press Y. Done.

Want Gui? Click the icon in your notification area, take a look at the new versions, then press "Update". Done.

On a deb based machine?

apt-get update
should keep you ok. Done.

Don't bring package management in a discussion to say windows has some advantage: I am a sysadmin and would thank the gods for something as simple and powerful as linux package management on windows.
And no, the third party solutions or AD (both costing thousands of EURs) do not count. Besides, they normally need another person doing the legwork.

Reply Score: 3

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Windows Update has pretty much *nothing* to do with the package managers: it covers ONLY the update of what MS wants to update, and even then only of the software they provide themselves.

It's true that Windows Updates is a weak concept, but the analogy to package management for security and bug-fix releases (for the software that it addresses) is fair.

I ... would thank the gods for something as simple and powerful as linux package management on windows.

Me too. (Actually I would thank one God and many developers.)

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I wouldn't thank god, he only wrote 1 OS, and it seems to be closed source. We don't even know the nature of the hardware it's running on, but I know we've been trying to reverse engineer the damn thing for 10,000 years, and all we've gotten for our troubles is some religous wars (similar to this particular argument, but with dead people) and a healthy aversion to Britney with no panties

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

But who programmed God in the first place? :-)

I think it's better to stay away from religious analogies when discussing software (except if you're in the world of Tron, then it's a given).

Reply Score: 3

RE: easy for granny-hard for me
by popey on Fri 5th Jan 2007 01:27 UTC in reply to "easy for granny-hard for me"
popey Member since:
2006-05-24

Hey, that's high quality open source spit and bubblegum there my friend!

Just because there are command line tools underneath the GUI doesn't make it any less stable. Look at what happens when a GUI item crashes in Windows, what alternative do you have? Can you run the underlying tool on the command line to see what the problem is and diagnose it? Most of the time, no.

The big problem with that is that it leads to the Windows mentality of "restart or give up" with no further investigation done. People who report problems with Linux system get asked to provide the output of command line utilities not because the nerds like to out-geek the users, but because it's the best way of conveying the necessary data to resolve the problem at hand.

Windows makes people lazy. They think they can use a computer like a vacuum cleaner. Empty it when it gets full, change a filter here and there and never perform any maintenance or really understand how it works. Ultimately something breaks and they have to pay an engineer to fix it, at which point they bitch and moan that the product was rubbish. For a $50 cleaner that isn't going to leak your bank details or lose your family photos when it dies that's probably an acceptable behaviour pattern but for a $2000 computer it isn't.

</rant>

Reply Score: 3

RE: easy for granny-hard for me
by sorpigal on Fri 5th Jan 2007 22:48 UTC in reply to "easy for granny-hard for me"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

That's because the UI *is* just a facade. The real system is underneath. One day we'll be so good at it you will not need to notice; one day the spit and bubblegum will be so smooth that you wont notice it. Just... not yet.

Reply Score: 1

Simple
by Joe User on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:23 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

What do you do when you install Ubuntu and you find out your scanner doesn't work? Do you reinstall Windows or do you buy another scanner?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Simple
by fsckit on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:54 UTC in reply to "Simple"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Well look at it this way. If you replace the scanner with a good one that's properly supported, a year from now you will have long forgotten the $30 you shelled out for good hardware. If you keep you crappy scanner and reinstall Windows, you get the short term gratification of scanning without dropping an additional $30, but within a year you'll realize that both your scanner and your OS suck.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Simple
by DigitalAxis on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:57 UTC in reply to "Simple"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

This is yet another example of how Linux doesn't have an even playing field.

If the scanner doesn't work on Linux, it's Linux's fault.

If the scanner doesn't work on Windows, it's the scanner's fault.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Simple
by BluenoseJake on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Simple"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Actually, in both cases, it's the scanner manufacturer's fault.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Simple
by draethus on Fri 5th Jan 2007 07:36 UTC in reply to "Simple"
draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

What do you do when you install Ubuntu and you find out your scanner doesn't work? Do you reinstall Windows or do you buy another scanner?

For most people: dual-boot into Windows when you need to scan.

For me: You reverse-engineer the Windows driver and code one for SANE, or, failing that, hack wine and add support for loading the Windows driver in Linux. Anybody interested in helping me test the latter setup?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Simple
by Babi Asu on Fri 5th Jan 2007 09:30 UTC in reply to "Simple"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

Most people will bash the scanner maker at many forums as capitalist, evil supporter, doesn't support Open Source movement, etc. After that, they install windows in second partition.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Simple
by archiesteel on Fri 5th Jan 2007 15:19 UTC in reply to "Simple"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

It ships with drivers, but these drivers are limited to the most common hardware.

Actually, they aren't. They include the vast majority of hardware out there, the only exception being proprietary-only drivers (which have to be installed separately).

What do you do when you install Ubuntu and you find out your scanner doesn't work? Do you reinstall Windows or do you buy another scanner?

This isn't 2001 anymore. Hardware support under Linux has improved dramatically. I have yet to find a USB scanner not supported under Linux. Enough with the FUD.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Simple
by chemical_scum on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:33 UTC in reply to "Simple"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

What do you do when you install Ubuntu and you find out your scanner doesn't work? Do you reinstall Windows or do you buy another scanner?

I downloaded the latest HP driver installed it and it works. Simple ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Simple
by billnvd on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:50 UTC in reply to "Simple"
billnvd Member since:
2006-02-04

"What do you do when you install Ubuntu and you find out your scanner doesn't work? Do you reinstall Windows or do you buy another scanner?"

Let's just rephrase that. What do you do when you upgrade Windows and your scanner no longer works?

I bet you don't ditch Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Simple
by gilboa on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Simple"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess he never tried using W2K3/64 (or XP/64) on his machine.

Oh wait, if the scanner doesn't work on 2K3 or XP/64, it's the manufacturer's fault.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

That coin has two sides
by KenJackson on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:58 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

If you want to buy a Windows system, go anywhere and you can pick up one. ... If you want to buy a Linux desktop... well, prepare for a long hunt.

Very true. But he didn't mention the good side of that coin. Consider what I wrote elsewhere:

Consider the difference in effort required. Acquiring an operational PC with Windows is drop-dead-simple--you just buy it. But a PC with pre-installed GNU/Linux is a rarity, so you probably can't get one unless you want it bad enough to install it yourself. That bit of initiative filters out most people. So when I meet people who use GNU/Linux, I immediately share a sense of accomplishment with them. This group feeling of camaraderie fosters a kind of mutual-help society on the web with a strong sense of community in the GNU/Linux world, and more generally, the F/OSS world.

Reply Score: 3

RE: That coin has two sides
by raver31 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 07:17 UTC in reply to "That coin has two sides"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but what good is that to the "my cats breath smells like cat food" brigade who hang around in pc world ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That coin has two sides
by Iron on Fri 5th Jan 2007 21:42 UTC in reply to "That coin has two sides"
Iron Member since:
2006-12-15

Google search for Linux laptops/desktops/servers is plentyful,please.May not be as plentyful as vendors selling windows but it isn't a hard search nor a long one.

Reply Score: 1

Linspire is a pile of shit
by djangoxl on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:15 UTC
djangoxl
Member since:
2006-03-10

I contacted their client service reps for a koobox pc inquiry and they NEVER returned an answer to the email. They can move along as I will create my own linux pc MYSELF!!
Who needs OEM builders anyway:-)

Reply Score: 2

Same Old
by timbobsteve on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:51 UTC
timbobsteve
Member since:
2006-06-25

People post articles like this because they know it will draw hits. All the Windows users will go read it and say "see, we told you so" and all the linux users read it and spend 2 days disputing it on forums.

Seriously S**T like this is just about getting attention. None of it really matters.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Same Old
by ralph on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:58 UTC in reply to "Same Old"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Did you even read the article?

Reply Score: 2

i beg to differ!
by tryphcycle on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:02 UTC
tryphcycle
Member since:
2006-02-16

"Today, you can do everything you want with a Linux desktop, except play the latest games."


or do professional graphic design! sorry.... no CS.... no use!

and dont go naming a bunch of OSS apps for page layout or vector drawing... or photo manipulation! that ANIT going to cut it!

there IS a reason for adobe being the #2 sofware vendor!!!!

i love linux but until i can load the latest version of CS.... i simple can NOT use it as my primary desktop!

Reply Score: 3

RE: i beg to differ!
by Temcat on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:23 UTC in reply to "i beg to differ!"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

You mean, you wouldn't use anything else besides CS even if it offered equivalent functionality and usability? But that would be stupid, unless the reason is format compatibility - which is unlikely in this case (I mean, you anyway have the output in one of the common graphic formats, don't you?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: i beg to differ!
by suryad on Fri 5th Jan 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE: i beg to differ!"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

So what is the equivalent? Do you know of any? Are you talking about GIMP?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: i beg to differ!
by Temcat on Fri 5th Jan 2007 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i beg to differ!"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

No, I don't think that there currently exists an OSS app equivalent to CS. But that wasn't my point - it's just that the parent post was worded as if nothing in principle could replace this specific app.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: i beg to differ!
by Coxy on Sun 7th Jan 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: i beg to differ!"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

There are no alternatives, it makes me laugh the way designers are pushed by people (programmers/network admins) here to switch to alternative better 'programmes' for Design and imaging on linux but when alternative programming languages are mentioned on osnews all the programmers/network admins say they aren't going to switch from their preferred/industry standard programming language of choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE: i beg to differ!
by popey on Fri 5th Jan 2007 01:35 UTC in reply to "i beg to differ!"
popey Member since:
2006-05-24

Adobe #2 software vendor? Where'd you get that? Last I heard it was Microsoft, IBM, SAP measured by market capitalisation.

Reply Score: 1

a good examle
by heh heh on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:12 UTC
heh heh
Member since:
2005-07-06

How about a very good example,
this week Fedora core stopping
support for past projects (lagacy)
wireless support is spoty, Some of us expect too much from free
(open source) linux & BSD w ill grow
much faster when venders have a
reason to support it

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D050; Blazer/4.3) 16;320x320

Reply Score: 1

There is only one....
by Smurf42 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:18 UTC
Smurf42
Member since:
2006-09-18

...thing that holds me back from being 100% Linux, and that is Audio apps. Linux has come a long way in the Studio department in the last 3 years, and a lot of the programs are fine. But I need something that will combined a smooth flow between apps for recording, looping, and mastering. Plus a lot stabler audio drivers for my M-audio, creative, and Echo cards.

But as for the so called 4 reasons, for my use they don't even exist..

Reply Score: 1

RE: There is only one....
by blitze on Fri 5th Jan 2007 09:16 UTC in reply to "There is only one...."
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Hey Smurf,

Using Echo Gina 3G on Ubuntu 64 which is something I can 't imagine on Vista or XP 64.

Audio apps are more or less a work in progress and JACK could do with some refining and simplification but there are some good projects in the works if not usable now.

Ardour 2.0
Audacity
Rose Garden 4.0

These are 3 apps that come to mind.
There is also a great music notation program for Linux that isn't equalled on Windows (and yes I mean Serbilius).

Personally my fav audio app ATM is Reaper which is Windows only but Justin might move it across if there is enough interest.

Don't give up yet and with Vista64 and its' DRM crap thrown into the mix, I think the future for Linux is quite bright. Either that or Haiku gets a release and develops to take over the Multi Media World. LOL

Reply Score: 2

Installers
by anonymousbrowser on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:23 UTC
anonymousbrowser
Member since:
2006-04-28

So users being able to run any manner of arbitrary installers for random applications under windows, with admin privileges by default, is one of Windows's strongest points???!

This is probably the number one cause of b0rked windows installations, user sees flashy advert for cool new "free" software, user downloads and instantly installs said software, problems begin thereafter. And they wont stop at one such program, they will start looking for ways to make their system run better after the initial infection with crapware, and the obvious remedy is to install more of it that will clean their registry on a daily basis and search out problems, while injecting advertising supertitously and blaming other products for its appearance.

Under linux there is less choice but what is there can be pulled out of repositories very easily, give them Linspire if they absolutely must feel that software needs a price to have value, they can waste money on the click n run warehouse. The best option is to improve Autopackage and integrate it better with existing package management systems for power users who know what they're installing, and make APT and RPM repository access maddeningly simple for beginners, this kind of thing is already happening. Of course software companies need to produce boxed products for linux that can be had from shops as well, people do like to waste their money in this way and would be disappointed if they didn't have the option.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Installers
by arielb on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:33 UTC in reply to "Installers"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

I like the macOS X bundle concept. don't always look at windows for inspiration

Reply Score: 1

the competition
by anonymousbrowser on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:24 UTC
anonymousbrowser
Member since:
2006-04-28

Oh, and we need to see the death of Apple's OSX product before linux stands a chance in many ways.

Reply Score: 2

h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

.. Won't it get boring?

I read a little through the piece and I was wondering, how many times have I read this before?

Then I saw the author's name: Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols! That explained it all. Mr. Vaughan-Nichols has been out of inspiration for quite some time.
Sorry, just my opinion.
For the why, see below.

One problem I have with his writings is that they give Linux a bad name - as if only whiners use it, that want to "win" imaginary "contests" with some other OS. Constantly comparing it with Windows... I'm sorry Steven, but I haven't used Windows for years. Let's look at Linux at its own right for a while.

Vaughan-Nichols is the editor of Linux-watch dot com.
When you search this website for the word "Linux", you get around 575 hits (with the most widely used engine).
Search it for "Windows", and you get around 543 hits! That's only about 6% less.
Search it for "Microsoft": 561 hits - only about 2% less.
"Ubuntu" - the most popular desktop distro for a few years now: only 508 hits, about 10% less than "Microsoft" or "Windows".
"Vista" - the least popular "Linux distro" at the moment: around 491 hits.

Great scores for a website called "Linux-watch".

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Yeah, these continual "Why Isn't Linux Winning on the Desktop" debates are really tiresome. We already know the reasons. They're repeated ad nauseum. I really wish that people would stop writing these things. It's a total waste of time.

Reply Score: 2

why linux loses?
by smashIt on Fri 5th Jan 2007 01:44 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

because no matter what distro you run, it's always the wrong one when you run into a problem

Reply Score: 1

Well now...
by cerbie on Fri 5th Jan 2007 02:26 UTC
cerbie
Member since:
2006-01-02

1: Installed base: I don't see that there's a problem, here. Linux grows: good. It doesn't need to be #1, guys. Really.

2: PC Vendor support: point granted freely.

3: Hardware vendor support: Linux gets better with every release, supporting hardware better and better, while vendors don't. Linux is gaining here, and Windows is sitting there, with little MS can do about it.

Windows users, who have become accustomed to the idea (em mine) that everything always works with their systems, are in for a rude awakening when they start upgrading to Vista.

Will they be? I predict they'll just have someone pull their hair out finding a compromise fix. Maybe some of us will give honest opinions, sure...

Here's a week-old XP scenario: TV tuner causes blue screens. Alternative hardware won't work well, though, because it's also got buggy vendor-specific sound drivers! I'm talking about integrated Sigmatel, BTW, for which they don't have basic reference drivers, and drivers not for this series of Dell don't work (they think they do, but no sound, or even no playback device listed).

Here's what I mean: if I plugged anything into the mic, it asked what to use it as. no matter what I chose, it wouldn't work right (sometimes dead silence, sometimes distorted left channel only). If I used my own sound card, the inputs wouldn't work, either. OK, now then, if I uninstalled the driver package, the sound would work perfectly until it rebooted and completed the removal. Same with my added USB one (that is, this Sigmatelor Dell **** messed with all inputs, not merely its own--that pissed me off). Not a very good solution there, is there (it was a notebook)?

My point here is that we often hide problems that exist in this magical world of Windows, which are more difficult to hide as such in Linux; binary drivers used or not.

Certified for Linux is a fantastic idea, but Linux gets poor FUD and no slack as far as hardware support goes, where Windows gets a free pass for many bad reasons.

4: Software support: it's a learning curve, and big guys aren't caring yet.

This is all good news... for software developers. For end-users, having a wide variety of software choices that are easy to use on any distribution is still a ways off. At least, however, Linux is finally on its way toward applications for ordinary, rather than only expert, users.

Welcome to 2 years ago, not late 06/early 07. Konqueror: ftp, file management, windows network browsing, CD ripping, and more! File Roller and Ark: got compression. Evince, Kpdf: nicer than Adobe! More editors of all kinds than you can shake grep at. The list goes on. For normal users, it's 99% learning curve (and some apps not doing right w/ the clipboard, here and there), not lack of basic applications.

Not expert stuff, either; just that most folks want perfect copies, so they don't have to actually learn anything. This is easier in Windows, where many of the same things have very gradually evolved since '95; so they can walk up a ramp, rather than climb a cliff.

Edited 2007-01-05 02:44

Reply Score: 5

RE: Well now...
by tomcat on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "Well now..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

1: Installed base: I don't see that there's a problem, here. Linux grows: good. It doesn't need to be #1, guys. Really.

Totally agree. I don't understand why people need popularity to validate their choice of OS.

3: Hardware vendor support: Linux gets better with every release, supporting hardware better and better, while vendors don't. Linux is gaining here, and Windows is sitting there, with little MS can do about it.

Certainly not true, regarding video cards. MS works very closely with video card manufacturers and, while they continue to evolve, Linux is falling steadily behind and trying to reverse-engineer drivers. Sad.

Welcome to 2 years ago, not late 06/early 07. Konqueror: ftp, file management, windows network browsing, CD ripping, and more! File Roller and Ark: got compression. Evince, Kpdf: nicer than Adobe! More editors of all kinds than you can shake grep at. The list goes on. For normal users, it's 99% learning curve (and some apps not doing right w/ the clipboard, here and there), not lack of basic applications.

Until products from Adobe (not just Flash) and similar are present on Linux, it's just not ready for many of us.

Reply Score: 0

Actually
by Sphinx on Fri 5th Jan 2007 06:19 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

because people always assume I'm anti-Linux when I write pieces like this -- that I use Linux desktops every day.

What we really assume is you've never used linux and are typing pieces like these on a windows ferrari laptop.

Reply Score: 4

it is limited
by heh heh on Fri 5th Jan 2007 06:24 UTC
heh heh
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been using linux off and on for the last 5years. and at the moment i am using xp and it does everything i want it to. Okay a few days ago i thought i can linux a another try and Whooops it cant find the video card,wireless or
bluetooth setup.The problem with linux is, like windows it has flaws, and there is plenty of free software for windows just as there is for linux. Many of us who run windows, know about linux and not all of us like linux
and for me linux is limited. And look at the news on fedora core, lagacy support is gone,gone,gone...
I think linux is can be okay for some people, but dont
expect it to replace WINDOWS.

Reply Score: 1

Buy a linux desktop?
by Mr.ricky on Fri 5th Jan 2007 10:52 UTC
Mr.ricky
Member since:
2007-01-05

"If you want to buy a Windows system, go anywhere and you can pick up one. ... If you want to buy a Linux desktop... well, prepare for a long hunt."

Buy a linux desktop? long hunt? well that's probaly because linux is mainly free and it's hard to buy free stuff.
But let's see how many clicks until I download a Linux Desktop: ok that's five clicks

Write linux on google >
linux wikipedia >
there is a list of famouse distributions click any (I clicked Ubuntu) >
click list of servers from where to download ubuntu >
get ubuntu >
download a copy of ubuntu now or order it for free

Note:
I clicked ubuntu because I believe that it is more likely that someone has already seen this name around)
Also this search was driven by the portuguese google page and the portuguese wikipedia page I believe that it will not differ much in other countries

Reply Score: 2

RE: Buy a linux desktop?
by DeadFishMan on Fri 5th Jan 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "Buy a linux desktop?"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

The author was refering to shops selling desktops with Linux preloaded on them, which is indeed quite hard to find.

Every once in a while someone here compiles a list with manufacturers that do that (I believe that it is also available on that LXer-something website) but aside from Dell and Lenovo which are definetely NOT interested in push that product line to their consumers, most are non-brand names, very small and far few and between companies that sell Linux-compatible hardware with some distro pre-installed.

And their marketing do leaves something to be desired...

Reply Score: 2

linux vs windows
by lemn on Fri 5th Jan 2007 12:12 UTC
lemn
Member since:
2007-01-05

I for one really like linux. I really do. It's a wonderful concept, apen source and all. I tried countless distros, just for fun. Currently i'm playing with ubuntu (isn't everybody?). I have now installed on my machine Win XP, Vista and Ubuntu. I can say that i never really tried to use Vista, it just feels wrong somehow. Don't get me wrong, it looks stunning, but has all sorts of shortcomings, like for example, with aero enabled, it's apian to drag windows around, using an FX5500 card. I know it's not the best card out there, but it shoul do the work. In theory. Let me just say that Gnome with Beryl blows away Vista's interface. It really flies even on a geforce 4MX, wich is really old hardware. And it looks beautiful. More than that, if you want, yuou can make the desktop look and behave just like Vista. I tried it just for fun, an it worked great. Well, all this i do just for fun, in my spare time, wich is like 5-10 minutes a day. Well, not exactly, but you get the picture. I am trying very hard to have a linux machine and forget about windows. I use the computer all the time, email, office work and whatnot. It's all the same on windows and linux, because i use firefox (they really have to fix the memory leak "feature", the for example firefox and opera with the same amount of tabs opened, firefox eats 250 mb of ram, and opera 41), thunderbird and openoffice. I never tried office 2007, but from my experience i can say that office 2003 is far better than openoffice. I use openoffice because it's free, and for the work i have to do with it it's quite ok, but they still have a long way to go to be on par with ms office. Just my opinion, don't shoot me. Well, the fun part stops here, unfortunately. For most of my work i have to use autocad. On windows, it work great, except for the fact that it's a memory hog. I also use homesite, photoshop and other web authoring software, none of wich is available for linux. I tried to replace photoshop with gimp, i even tried the gimpshop, but i just didn't do what i needed. Actually, with a lot of work, it probably does, but i just don't have the time to work on it, because of the deadlines i have to meet. Don't get me started about nvu as a replacement for dreamweaver. The big plus is that teh windows versions of these programs work in linux, through wine, and pretty good actually. So i am set web authoring-wise. But i have to install wine, configure it, and then install the programs i want to use. For me it's not a big problem, but maybe other users will not be a happy about it. But the main program i need to use, autocad, is not available for linux. I found some free alternatives, but none of them would work for some reason or another (for example, most of them couldn't handle a 50 mb dxf file). It does not work in wine either. I tried the 2004 and 2006 versions. Also, i didn't find a guide on the web on how to make it work. If someone here knows how to do it, it would be great if they let me know the secret. Autocad, beeing the memory hig that it is, makes it almost impossible to use it under a guest windows operating system. So i am stuck with autocad on windows. Ok, forget about work and let's get back to the fun part. The new nvidia drivers are making a lot of progress, and they really work prety ok for me. Not so long ago, i would have to edit the xorg.conf file to change resolution, for example, but no more. I can even set the tv-out with just a few mouse-clicks. The instal process is not the easyest in the world, tho. Apt-get should do the trick on debian systems. Ok, so i have installed the nvidia drivers, and now i want to watch a movie on the tv. I simply go the the nvidia control panel, and select tv-out. Wait, it has no panning for the tv. And no option "full screen video" like it does on windows XP. Well, ok, i can change the resolution to 1024x768, and play the video full screen, but then i can't use the computer for something else for the duration of the movie. What if i want to check my email and my girlfriend is watching some movie? I can do it on windows, but in linux i have to pause the movie, minimize mplayer, check the email, and listen to my girlfriend yelling at me for pausing the movie. I know all this are not linux-related, more like driver-related. But why doesn't nvidia release a linux driver that has all the features that are available on windows? Could it have something to do with all the fuss created about binary drivers? Or do people at nvidia secretely hate linux users? Anyway, we the users are stuck with binary drivers that are not feature-complete, or with oss drivers that are far from perfect. The point is, if nvidia doesn't want to open up their specs, they won't. So i guess is a losing battle, from the users point of view. Ok, so forget playing movies on tv for a second. Let's try to watch some satellite tv. I know, let's try my dvb card. Actually, i did, and after some trying to get it to work, i just got tired. This is the problem with linux today, i guess. It's a good operating system, but falls short on some things, some of wich are really importand (autocad), and some of wich are less important (movies), but can become very annoying. Someone here wrote about some scanner not working in linux, so the advice was get a new one because the one you have is crappy. It's working alright in windows, it does its job, scanning documents, so why is it crap? Maybe the manufacturer is to blame, why didn't they program a linux driver? Could it be the same binary drivers issue, or do the scanner people hate linux too? Somebody here wrote that it's not fair to blame linux if it does not have the drivers for the scanner. Well, if that's true, then sayint that linux has great hardware support - just about everything works out of the box can't be true. So, i guess linux got very far in terms of usability, but it needs to work out those little (or sometimes big) problems, and it should be good to use every day, by everybody. What linux comunity needs to do is settle once and for all if linux based operating systems are just toys to use by a closed comunity (if you are not a geek then stay out and let us geeks play with our toy) - wich is fine, but then stop saying that linux is better than windows on teh desktop because it is not, or accept the fact that windows is ahead in terms of usability, start listen to the users, stop calling them stupid, average joes, etc, stop saying things like rtfm everytime a newbie asks a question and the feel good about how smart you are - imagine going to the dentist and instead of cleaning your teeth, he tells you to rtfm. If the developers accept the fact that windows is more usable, and are willing to make some compromises along the way, then linux not only could, but will be much usable than windows in the long run. I am saying usable, not better. It already is arguably better (more secure, etc). But if you want to have a desktop operating system, it has to be usable. Otherwise, only a few people will use it. The more people use an operating system, the more hardware parts the manufacturers sell, so they will be forced by the market to create better drivers. This is why having more users is very important. Damn, this was a long post ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: linux vs windows
by suryad on Fri 5th Jan 2007 14:27 UTC in reply to "linux vs windows"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

I am sorry. Your post bust have been a great post worthy of a great score...but please.....paragraphs!!! I cant read a post that long like that!

Reply Score: 2

wanna beat win*down?
by kenneith on Fri 5th Jan 2007 12:51 UTC
kenneith
Member since:
2007-01-01

04 points that the author shows out is quite impressive. with IMHO, it is simply that if Linux desktop wanna take over windows, it better focuses on software installation modeling regardless with RPM/DEB/TGZ or lib. dependencies - just drop CD in the CD drive and go, driver's easy-step install (dont have to open #sudo gedit /etc/X11/... my Dad dunno that). Dont waste time to expand more Distros, just a common modeling for all is that users need

I have been used Linux quite long (from RH 5.1 but not a linux guru) and seen that Ubuntu's architect modeling can attract more users if in future they can cluster some more everyday essential soft (when I need turn on gtalk to voice with Dad, windows switch! or send sms using skype, win* again, and so on. But anyway Linux is still my everyday usage though I know it is a big challenge for newbies.

But one more thing you get benefit from Linux is, it is freedom. Dont wanna waste $400.00 for MS license? Just stick your bum infront of Linux box and set up the box well-run. And the more you explore *nix, the more interesting you get. My work doesnt concern with IT, but I still like to handle linux box myself, it is quite fun!

Edited 2007-01-05 13:00

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Tuishimi on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:14 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

And last but not less, not presure upon vendors to release source code.

Yes, because that is clearly linked to desktop adoption...not!

I'm trying to see how you arrived at this conclusion, and frankly I just can't. In fact, one could easily argue that having good open-source drivers for 3D cards would *increase* desktop adoption.

Seriously, that comment of yours completely misses the mark.


I kind of thought that was what he was implying?

Maybe we both misunderstand.

Reply Score: 2

Conclusion
by Matt24 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 16:26 UTC
Matt24
Member since:
2005-07-23

Reading the article, I am smiling behind OSX and many are still not aware.

But I sure hope Linux will get there, only don't let the OSF principle not become a deadlock.

Reply Score: 1

notice
by heh heh on Fri 5th Jan 2007 17:55 UTC
heh heh
Member since:
2005-07-06

Much of linux is free
but go to a retail store that is selling
linux for say, $40.00
to $75.00. watch for
while, Most people will walk by the linux display and pay
$200-$300 for win xp.
why is that? if one buys software or hardware, is it reasonable to go off
beaten path for
experimenting with your $1000 investment? Free often in life you get
what you pay for.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC; 240x320)

Reply Score: 1

v It's Over already.
by proforma on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:33 UTC
RE: It's Over already.
by tomcat on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:35 UTC in reply to "It's Over already."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Linux is done, stick a fork in it.

Linux on the desktop, that is. Linux on the server is a far different thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's Over already.
by chemical_scum on Sat 6th Jan 2007 05:35 UTC in reply to "It's Over already."
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

At the end of the day, Windows runs the applications that I want and Linux does not

Windows does not run Ghemical.

Further I don't want to run IIS nor MSSQL and GIMP is fine with me I can do stuff with it to digital photos that the avid Photoshop users I know seem incapable of achieving ("howdya do that").

Windows doesn't runs the application I really need and Linux does.

Throw Windows out the Window - Defenestrate now.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's Over already.
by archiesteel on Sun 7th Jan 2007 04:12 UTC in reply to "It's Over already."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I can get GIMP for Windows, but you can't get Photoshop for Linux.

That's not entirely true. Photoshop has been used in a professionnal setting under Linux, by Disney, using Crossover Office.

Gimp lacks a very small number of Photoshop features, but for 95% of users it's a very good alternative at a price that can't be beat.

As for IIS and MSSQL, who cares? Apache rules, and there are many very good Databases for Linux (from low-end to high-end).

But please don't let facts get in the way of your unbridled fanboyism.

Reply Score: 2

Not this broken record again.
by Edward on Sat 6th Jan 2007 18:24 UTC
Edward
Member since:
2005-09-17

The guy who typed the post about hardware support is right. I have a MS Optical Intelimouse with 7 buttons & a scroll wheel. Linux needed no drivers, windows did & the funny thing is it is a "MS" product!!! Put a new motherboard in last week it made windows unbootable, ended up having to reinstall & with linux popped in my CD to do a repair that fixed it.

Reply Score: 1

Zzzzz
by Bringbackanonposting on Sun 7th Jan 2007 22:26 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

Please write something new on this subject instead of the same old repetitive content. Not worth reading.

Reply Score: 1