OSNews

That's about the most worrisome thing I've heard of since the thing about Microsoft patenting the human body.
(as a conduit for information, referring apparently to a university (MIT) project in wearable computing that communicated via electrical signals across the skin)

Well, that and their Java problem way back, Kerberos(wasn't it?), the way both Apple and Microsoft claim to have invented the latest feature that everyone else has had for YEARS...

That is exactly why patents are worthless in the EU. They are not granted to the owner/developer, but are granted to the first person who gets his application accepted.

The US should get its head out of it ass and ban patents, before their IT gets left behind the rest of the world, tied up in court disputes.

May even be a little broader than that, If I read that application right they are attempting to patent the execution of object code.

May even be a little broader than that, If I read that application right they are attempting to patent the execution of object code.

I imagine there'll be lots of prior art for that...

This whole patent warfare is getting ridiculous!

Microsoft has dropped their patent application:

http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/01/28/update-response-t...

MS is admitting they were in the wrong, with more details to follow soon.

Of course, someone somewhere will still find a way to bash them for this. MS are doing the right thing by dropping the application.

Edited 2007-01-29 06:13

They have not dropped the patent application. They have promised to drop the patent application.

And it's not the first time they apply for a patent for IP belonging to somebody else (think grouped buttons on a taskbar).

Microsoft is only promising to drop the patent application BECAUSE we are bashing them.

MS-apologists like you are so funny. You could at least thank us for saving MS' ass.

And yes, dropping the patent application would be the right thing to do. When you try to steal something, not stealing it is usually the right thing to do

I've reread my comment several times to figure out exactly where I apologized for MS. Oh wait, I didn't...you read between the lines and assumed I was in the MS camp on this one. And yeah, a handful of geeks just saved MS's ass...good one. I'm sure BillG was losing sleep over this one.

Regardless, BlueJ just got a ton of free publicity.

Regardless, BlueJ just got a ton of free publicity.
Oh so we should all say "thank you microsoft"? What looks like a poor attempt of MS to steal other peoples' IP was only an altruistic deed for the good of mankind. Thank you for opening the eyes of us blinded people.

"Of course, someone somewhere will still find a way to bash them for this. MS are doing the right thing by dropping the application."

Let me see if I understand what you are saying: Microsoft got caught red-handed with their inside someone-else's cookie-jar and -promised- to back-off when the all thing turned into a PR nightmare - and we should be *grateful*? For them doing the "right thing"?

Tell me, if someone got caught braking into your house - and promised to return everything that he had stolen from you. Would you have been grateful? Or would you have insisted this guy spend the next 5 years in jail?

Geez!
- Gilboa

Edited 2007-01-29 10:03

SJVN eluded to some hardware difficulties with MEPIS on his review box, but hasn't gotten around to explaining them in the first two parts. He really only explained in layman's terms that Vista won't boot if Linux writes GRUB to the MBR, which is no different than with XP. Nobody expected Vista's bootloader to boot Linux, and nobody with any understanding of the PC architecture expected Vista to boot with GRUB in the MBR unless the Linux distribution's installer detected and configured Vista in the GRUB configuration.

It stands to question why a modern distribution like MEPIS failed to detect and configure Vista for dual-boot. This is more of a failure on MEPIS' part than Microsoft's, since the burden of supporting dual-boot always falls on the minority OS.

I hear ya on the issue of hardware selection. Above and beyond making sure your hardware plays well with Linux, you should also make sure your hardware doesn't suck. Modern PC hardware has a serious case of the suck. They plop these general-purpose I/O processors on the board and hire some contractors to throw together some firmware and OS drivers in a couple weeks' time. The results are less than stellar.

Winmodems were a good example, but almost nobody uses those anymore. Today's biggest offender is onboard RAID. This is cruel joke perpetrated on the whiny gamers that frequent AnandTech and HardOCP. Just say no. If you want RAID, and true hardware RAID doesn't make sense (i.e. you have IDE/SATA drives whose slow seek times negate any advantages of dedicated hardware), the Linux MD driver provides excellent reliability, incredible flexibility, and vastly superior performance compared to onboard RAID. Also check out EVMS, which is so awesome I don't fully understand why everybody with 2+ disks isn't using it.

Anyways, these days, most hardware plays nicely with Linux, and many vendors have even started listing Linux support if their product is supported by the mainline kernel. Some of yesterday's glaring shortcomings like printers and PTP cameras are usually not a problem anymore. Are you better off with HP printers and USB mass storage cameras? Yes. But the others generally work fine, too.

Display compatibility, especially multi-head and docking, will continue to be a problem that each distro handles with various levels of success, at least until Xorg releases its runtime auto-configuration system later this year.

As Linus notes, it's getting harder to get new people involved in kernel development these days, simply because the low-hanging fruit is getting harder to find. Most of the work involves pulling together existing technologies into a cohesive interface. Vendors are starting to contribute very high-quality code to this effect, such as EVMS mentioned above, which is primarily an IBM project.

Xen and VMware are literally competing to provide the best paravirtualization interface for Linux. This is a trend that will continue to bring exceptional features to the platform. Unlike that other speech, we can honestly say to the community and commercial customers around the globe, that the state of the Linux ecosystem is strong. Very strong.

//Vista won't boot if Linux writes GRUB to the MBR, which is no different than with XP.//

I beg to differ.

Almost every single recent Linux distribution CD detects Windows, including Windows XP, and writes Grub to the MBR allowing a dual boot. You can even set Windows as the default to boot if you want to.

//This is more of a failure on MEPIS' part than Microsoft's, since the burden of supporting dual-boot always falls on the minority OS. //

Pfft. The burden falls on the second-installed OS. It is MY machine, and if I have already installed a Linux OS on MY machine, Vista has no right to scrub it ... but it does.

Edited 2007-01-29 08:39

I didn't word that sentence the right way... I meant that if Linux writes GRUB to the MBR _and_ doesn't properly configure GRUB to boot Windows, then Windows won't boot, regardless of whether it's XP or Vista.

From TFA, I assume that MEPIS _was_ the second-installed OS, and therefore it should have properly configured GRUB to boot Vista.

As for being able to boot Linux if Windows is the second-installed OS, I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't personally have any experience with configuring the XP or Vista bootloaders to boot Linux, but my instincts tell me that isn't possible (without using some third-party power-user Windows bootloader, which I'm sure is available somewhere). I also doubt that it's possible to install Windows XP or Vista without its bootloader overwriting your preexisting one (again, without using some third-party power-user Windows installer which I'm sure is available somewhere).

In Microsoft's mind, this isn't a bug. If you call them on it, they'll let you to install Windows first and Linux second. I agree that this is inconvenient if you already have Linux installed and want to try Vista, but if you already have a nice Linux install that you don't want to part with, then why in the world would you want to beta-test Vista RTM? For once, their hardware and software support looks weak compared to Linux! ;-)

//In Microsoft's mind, this isn't a bug. If you call them on it, they'll let you to install Windows first and Linux second. I agree that this is inconvenient if you already have Linux installed and want to try Vista, but if you already have a nice Linux install that you don't want to part with, then why in the world would you want to beta-test Vista RTM? For once, their hardware and software support looks weak compared to Linux! ;-)//

Personally, I keep a Linux System rescue CD around. That way you can install Linux, then later install Windows (because that is when they each came out or became available to you, or because you need to re-install Windows after it got owned) ... and after the Windows (re-)install has rudely trashed the MBR and any dual-boot bootloader, you can then boot he System Rescue CD and use that CD as a bootloader for your original Linux partition. Once you have your original Linux running again, you can edit /boot/grub/menu.lst and add an entry for the newly-installed version of Windows, then run "grub-install /dev/hda".

That way, you can install a Linux OS first, a Windows OS second (or re-install a Windows OS), and still have a dual-boot system after the Windows rudeness.

Good point... But then again, where are you going to find an unbiased opinion?

Not really sure, but desktoplinux has too much in stake to provide unbiased data. Can you possibly even see desktoplinux writing "Vista is a really good operating system..." or something?

It too deep in the trenches to say anything productive.

From the amiga guys?

Naw, all they'd say is that they both suck and the Amiga had all of that functionality in 1985, or will have better this and that in the next OS release (albeit no hardware to run it on).

At least they wouldn't be lying. Bonus, it wouldn't be another windows,mac or linux guy reviewing windows,mac or linux. There's a bit too much of that these days.

I'm a pragmatist. I use the tools that work when they work, and I've got a great deal of experience with both Microsoft and non-Microsoft OSes. I'll be happy to give you an unbiased opinion.

In about five years, when I finally have to buy a replacement laptop that runs Vista and I've had a while to try it out.

There is a slight difference though; MSDN/Channel 9 is a developer orientated facility that really doesn't even touch on the subject on the whole holy war that is Linux vs. Windows - the main focus is informing developers about the features in Windows, not being as some sort of clandestine marketing wing of Windows.

As for the Desktoplinux article, it is very simplistic; like I keep saying, the problem isn't hardware support, most people's hardware will be supported out of the box without any problems; the issue appears when these end users start demanding applications from their favourite application vendor; Jane who wants an easy to use desktop publishing application, Susy wanting to run her DVD encyclopaedia, David who wants to download his photos off his camera and run Photoshop Elements to do his tweaking.

The block to wide spread adoption of Linux is application availability - you can keep denying the obvious, but when you constantly hear, "oh, can I still run zyx application" and you say "no" they'll always reply, "oh, well, I'll just put up with Windows with all of its imperfections". Application availability dictate who the dominant operating system vendor is.

I hear the same old excuse from you every time Linux is mentioned.

"I cannot use this, I cannot use that"...

You think people cannot learn more than one thing ?

I think the main reason is that your friends and family see you as some kind of "computer guru", but you know for a fact, that if you are sat in front of a Linux machine, you will not have a clue where to start.

Now, to your points, Sribus is probably the easiest DTP program on any platform.
DVD encylodepia are obsolete the day they are pressed, even Encyclopedia Britannica knows this, and prefers a web-based version instead.
Digital cameras work better in Linux with its supported graphics programs like Fphoto and Gwenview.

This is not a personal attack on you, but on all "Windows power users", who are more like trained monkeys, by knowing which menu holds what in each of the apps they use.

Edited 2007-01-28 08:32

But lets remember, these are users who have no interest in learning; they've learned one application and thus, they appoint themselves as a computer guru.

Like I've said in the past, I am running Linux right now, but its about facing the reality that there isn't going to be a 'giant leap forward' - those who want to use it, will use it, irrespective of what arrangement Microsoft have with OEM's and whether, quite frankly, scum sucking vermin like Adobe, port their products or not.

My brother is like that lol

He kept going to dodgy sites on Windows, after first disabling the firewall and virus scanner, "cos it slowed his machine"
Needless to say, his machine was constantly getting borked.

I installed Ubuntu on it, my mum has no problems with it, she is more productive on Linux that she was on Windows, but my brother is a cabbage sometimes.

He cannot chat to people on Yahoo messenger, cos GAIM does not look like Yahoo, and he does not know how to type "Yahoo Messenger" + Ubuntu into Google.

He cannot play music, as he does not know that his music files are actually on the hard drive, not "kept in Limewire"

Also, on Windows all he pics were " in Picasa", he has no concept of filesystems.

No point teaching him though, it goes in one ear and out the other. Back to his Xbox..

And Microsoft's 'get the facts' campaign wasn't FUD? I've been saying Microsofts 'plug 'n' pray' has been shite for years. Out of the box, Linux supports a LOT more hardware. End of story.

The interesting thing was his comments about bitlocker encryption, and the new bootloader. Amazing, that Microsoft won't make a bootloader that's both user friendly, and supports other operating systems. Maybe the EEC should look at that...

Dave

And windows support ALL hardware. End of story.

Nah... Just all PC hardware, not machines with ARM, Sparc or PPC CPU's, for example. I also guess fx certain specifix apple hardware won't work in windows, so the point that ALL hardware works in windows seems a bit screwed...

//Seriously, who cares about these architectures? The PC architecture is everywhere. It's about the only architecture you'll find at Best Buy.//

You won't find much x_86 hardware in embedded devices, such as PDAs and mobile phones.

Linux is set to rule there.

You might find X-86 hardware in "clusters" such as that run by Google, but you won't find any Windows there. Linux rules clusters.

You won't find and X-86 hardware amongst supercomputers. Linux rules on supercomputers.

Linux has the lead in the server arena.

By the numbers, that possibly gives a lead in installed base to Linux, especially because of the embedded devices.

Who said we were talking about servers? Of course Linux rulz in servers, because it's a server-oriented OS. Vista doesn't rule for sure in servers because it's not a server OS. You find all kinds of tricks to show you're right. I tell you you're right! Linux rulz on servers. But it's a piece of crap when it comes to desktop usage. The best proof is that no one around us uses Linux as a desktop OS.

//Vista doesn't rule for sure in servers because it's not a server OS. //

Vista doesn't rule anywhere ... at least as yet.

Of all desktop-viable OSes, Vista has the lowest installed base. Vista isn't even released yet for non-business users.

"You won't find and X-86 hardware amongst supercomputers. "

Well only about 65% of the current top500.org list.... not that this is a fantastic metric

Nah... Just all PC hardware, not machines with ARM, Sparc or PPC CPU's, for example.
We are talking about desktop. Do you know a lot of desktop with ARM/sparc CPU ?

And not ALL linux distro support all architecture: SuSE, RH or mandriva running do not run on a SPARC/ARM/PPC...

Do you know a lot of desktop with ARM/sparc CPU ?

I actually have a n UltraSPARC desktop. They are cheap, because there really are a lot of them in the 2nd hand market.

Yes, and none of the 'big' desktop linux run on it.

Yes, and none of the 'big' desktop linux run on it.

Ubuntu runs on it. It's been one of the most popular desktop distros around for quite some time, now. It's been number one on distrowatch for more than a year (though in the last 7 days PCLinuxOS has garnered more attention, but that is probably just a temporary spike).

Those are a serious bargain with massive bang for the buck, good eye. Not sure you can equate sparc with ultrasparc though. I still have a smokin' sparc5 workstation with a 85mhz upgrade and an ultra 3d creator card, still running strong and working great, know a few people that have them. Got mine as a $350 trade-in on an ultra II.

// {{Out of the box, Linux supports a LOT more hardware. End of story.}}

And windows support ALL hardware. End of story. //

Not correct. Firstly, Linux runs on considerably more different platforms than Windows does.

Windows for PPC? Windows for Playstation? Windows for ARM? Windows for MIPS? Windows for SPARC? Windows for <insert name of any supercomputer>? ... Doesn't exist.

But, assuming you were constraining yourself to just 32-bit X_86 platforms, even then, of all the installs I have ever done on X_86 - based machines, out of the box Linux hardware support is far, far more complete.

Every single Windows machine, I have had to put in at least a driver disk (that didn't come from the Windows box) for video cards. I normally also have to find a motherboard disk (which also did not come from the Windows box) to get a driver for audio and network card, and yet other disks from yet other boxes for the printer, the scanner, the digital camera, etc, etc. Sometimes, I even have to find a driver disk for the mouse, of all things.

So no, most definitely, out of the box Windows supports way, way less hardware than Linux supports.

This is true now, for 32-bit X_86 hardware.

When 64-bit hardware becomes a must (it will happen as soon as most machines come with 4Gb RAM or more) ... then Vista is in real trouble. Microsoft does not have the source for most drivers under Windows ... the hardware vendors write the drivers. There are precious few 64-bit drivers for Windows. For Linux, a 64-bit driver is, in a majority of cases, simply a matter of a re-compile.

When the world moves to 64-bit, Vista will be in a world of hurt compared with Linux when it comes to lack of hardware support.

Edited 2007-01-28 13:00

//With Linux you have NOTHING! The drivers that come with Linux install are only limited to the most common hardware (very few). When you buy a scanner, go to AGFA's web site, and search for Linux drivers! This is the same thing with almost all hardware vendors, this is why you can't use scanners, web cams, winmodems, winprinters, Sony cameras and all that. These devices only work for Macintosh and Windows. This is why you can't use Linux for movie authoring, electronic music, professional graphic work, CAD, etc... No offense. //

No offense? None taken. You are however, sadly mistaken.

Most hardware works out-of-the-box with Linux. And I mean, off the one install CD of the Linux distribution. This includes most printers, scanners, digital cameras and whatnot. For the most part you don't have to search the web, nor put in any additional driver disks, it jsut works ... at least far more of it works for Linux than for Windows. Truly. The only problem areas are some winmodems (less and less of a concern these days) and some wireless cards. There are only a few manufacturers which you have to avoid.

//When the world moves to 64 bits, Vista is going to follow. Stop saying it will stop working because of 32 bit drivers. They're intelligent enough to get these drivers recompiled.//

Microsoft cannot recompile drivers for which it does not have the source. On most Windows driver install disks, there is only a binary, no source, and no 64-bit version. The move from 32 bits to 64 bits for Windows will be very, very similar to the move from 16 bits win 3.1 to 32 bit win95. It was a very painful transiition time for Windows. There was a whole raft of hardware which worked fine for win 3.1 which never ever had a 32-bit Windows driver written for it.

For Linux, in most cases, the kernel devs already have the source.

//You're a liar. YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE. I'm sure you're a Linux user and you know it's not the case, which makes your statement even more wrong. What's sad is that some people may read you and think Linux will work with their hardware. This doesn't help Linux, it actually drives even more people into frustration. It's like the Ubuntu articles in Digg.com that say people who don't use Ubuntu yet are morons. So some people try it, run into frustration and never come back. In the end the Linux community gets bad reputation, and Linux as well.//

I am not lying.

On every single machine I have ever installed an OS on, or used in a project, and by now this runs to hundreds of different machines, Linux works out-of-the-box with more of the hardware than Windows does.

Every-single-time. No joke. Every single time, there are three or four or more bits of the hardware that a standard Windows install disk does not recognise. Even the video cards start in the fall-back VGA mode until you put a separate driver disk in.

Most time I install Ubuntu or SuSe or Knoppix or the like, all of the hardware is recognised on first boot.

I don't know why you are shouting at me, this is the plain simple truth.

Edited 2007-01-28 13:52

"""
You're a liar. YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE.
"""

No. He's not lying. I make install CD's for some of my clients which they use to convert Windows machines to Linux as they have problems with them. It's faster and easier for them to just move the machines onto the XDMCP server than to try to figure out what went wrong with Windows.

I used to base them on Fedora, but now I use CentOS for longer support.

I automate the install a bit, so I can just hand the set over to someone at the site, who need not really even be all that technical.

And it has amazed me just how rarely they run into problems with the install. They also install onto new machines (a mix of brands) as well as recycling older ones, and hardware incompatibilities are remarkably rare.

Over the last few years, I would estimate that about 50 installations have been performed.

I honestly would have expected more difficulties.

Extracted from your post :
When you buy a scanner, go to AGFA's web site, and search for Linux drivers! (...)

We own an AGFA 1212u USB scanner. This scanner was bundled with Windows 98 drivers and programs. When we bought a new computer with Windows XP, we could not install the driver disk on XP. So we went to AGFA website and searched for Windows XP drivers. But AGFA had dropped support for this scanner model. So it's more or less useless now (the hardware still works with the old PC on Windows 98 though).

If (necessarily open source) Linux drivers for this hardware were available, this kind of situation would never happen.

If (necessarily open source) Linux drivers for this hardware were available, this kind of situation would never happen.

I agree but this is not the case.

Every single Windows machine, I have had to put in at least a driver disk (that didn't come from the Windows box) for video cards.
Good choice: on linux, out of some nvidia drivers, you have no driver at all. Really cool for desktop, isn't it ?

I normally also have to find a motherboard disk (which also did not come from the Windows box) to get a driver for audio and network card, and yet other disks from yet other boxes for the printer, the scanner, the digital camera, etc, etc. Sometimes, I even have to find a driver disk for the mouse, of all things.

Yeah, but you will always find a drive, on linux you will just cry if your hardware is not supported out of the box.

When the world moves to 64-bit, Vista will be in a world of hurt compared with Linux when it comes to lack of hardware support.
Yeah, I think you are right. Nobody will make 64 bits driver for the OS running on 95% of the desktop on the earth ...

//Good choice: on linux, out of some nvidia drivers, you have no driver at all. Really cool for desktop, isn't it ? //

What? Nvidia is supported out-of-the-box for 2D, and there is a 3D driver you can download which parallels the situation for Windows.

Hence, out-of-the-box support for nvidia is better on Linux than it is on Windows. Out-of-the-box, Windows just uses a generic VGA driver for Nvidia.

//Yeah, but you will always find a drive, on linux you will just cry if your hardware is not supported out of the box.//

Not at all. I have encountered more hardware (especially on older machines) which has no viable (current) Windows driver than I have encountered hardware for which there is no viable Linux driver.

The situation for Vista is waaaaaaay worse than Windows XP. There is a huge vast array of hardware for which there is no driver for Vista.

Where there is no driver for Vista for your hardware item, you will not find a driver anywhere for some time. Vista won't install an XP driver. There will be a large amount of hardware for which a Vista driver never ever appears.

//Yeah, I think you are right. Nobody will make 64 bits driver for the OS running on 95% of the desktop on the earth ...//

WTF?? All it takes is to have a board that went out of production just last year ... it is quite likely that the manufacturer won't bother with a Vista driver to support old models ... especially if the manufacturer has gone out of business.

The situation is drastic enough just for Vista, which does not require much change from XP. For 64-bit Windows, the situation will be significantly worse.

Linux has significantly better hardware support than Vista, in every way imaginable. Vista won't even run on over 90% of current hardware out there.

Never saw a such dishonest guy.

Linux has significantly better hardware support than Vista, in every way imaginable. Vista won't even run on over 90% of current hardware out there.

OK, so tell me why almost all wifi card are not supported by Linux if it supports most hardware than windows ? hum ???

Where are the full accelerated 3D drivers for ATI card ?

Where are the drivers allowing you to take the full advantage of all the recent printers ?
Just check Epson, Canon, all websites, there is no drivers at all. You have only the choice to use the crappy generic drivers from linux.

Tell me why the open source guy are always crying because 90% of the hardware spec is closed if you 'already' have everything working without ?

On windows my hardware will always be supported because EVERY drivers in the world are made for windows.

//OK, so tell me why almost all wifi card are not supported by Linux if it supports most hardware than windows ? hum ??? //

About half of the wireless card manufacturers refuse to release specifications to Linux devs.

That means about half of the wireless cards have only modest support in Linux out of the box.

The same cards are not supported by Windows out-of-the-box either. You have to put in a separate CD that comes with the card (not with Windows) and install drivers from that CD.

It turns out that if you have bought a card, you als get Windows drivers. For Linux, you would then install ndiswrapper ( http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/ ) and use the drivers for Windows on your Linux installation.

"NdisWrapper

Some vendors do not release specifications of the hardware or provide a Linux driver for their wireless network cards. This project implements Windows kernel API and NDIS (Network Driver Interface Specification) API within Linux kernel. A Windows driver for wireless network card is then linked to this implementation so that the driver runs natively, as though it is in Windows, without binary emulation."

//Where are the full accelerated 3D drivers for ATI card ? //

On the manufacturers websites.

For example, here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html

//Where are the drivers allowing you to take the full advantage of all the recent printers ?
Just check Epson, Canon, all websites, there is no drivers at all. You have only the choice to use the crappy generic drivers from linux. //

Not at all. See here:
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/OpenPrinting/Database/DatabaseIn...
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/OpenPrinting/Database/SuggestedP...
http://www.linuxprinting.org/driver_list.cgi

The best choices are HP printers, then Epson.

The drivers from HPLIP are written specifically for Linux by HP, and they work very well.
http://hplip.sourceforge.net/

//Tell me why the open source guy are always crying because 90% of the hardware spec is closed if you 'already' have everything working without ?//

Quote, please. Especially the 90% figure, I am most interested where you get that from.

//On windows my hardware will always be supported because EVERY drivers in the world are made for windows.//

Not out of the box ... you will need a separate install CD.

Not for Vista. Most current hardware doesn't have a driver for Vista, and most current hardware never will work on Vista.

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/ed1e3b7d-5ea7...
"All hardware on the HCL works with Windows Vista. Hardware not included on the HCL is not guaranteed to work successfully with Windows Vista.

Installing Windows Vista on a computer that has hardware that is not on the HCL might cause the installation to fail, or it might cause problems after installation."

Edited 2007-01-29 08:44

And windows support ALL hardware. End of story.

Except, it doesn't.

I have an old TV card that I picked up for a couple of quid at a car boot sale a few years ago. It didn't come with a driver disc of any sort.

I plugged the card in, fired up Windows, and of course the driver was "not found". I then had to spend hours Googling to find the right driver for it. The manufacturer no longer listed the product on their website, and I eventually found the file I required on some driver archive site.

Then I fired up Linux. Well, you can guess this part of the story. It was detected and configured and working without me doing a single thing (other than tuning the channels, obviously). It was the best plug-and-play experience I've ever had with hardware.

Well of course, this doesn't disprove your theory, because I did find a Windows XP driver for it. But given that the manufacturer has given up supporting this product, what happens when/if I get a PC with Vista on it?

I suppose there's possibility that I might be able to get the XP driver working on 32-bit Vista. But what if I go for the AMD64 version? I'm sure you'll agree that there's very little chance of this hardware ever working on 64-bit Vista.

So I can either stick with XP and 32-bit computing all my life, or I have to buy a new TV card -- even though there's nothing wrong with my old one, and it supports all the features I want.

Tell me again, what was that about Windows supporting ALL hardware?

(Of course, the card works just as well on 64-bit installations of Linux as it does on 32-bit. But given how far ahead Linux is in the 64-bit race, this probably isn't a surprise.)

And windows support ALL hardware. End of story.

Actually it doesn't. It doesn't even come close.

However, most manufacturers ship a windows driver with their product, though the driver doesn't always work.

I've seen webcams, USB harddrives and scanners not working with Windows despite having drivers. Getting a scanner to work with Win2K3 can be quite challenging.

2 wrongs don't make a right. I never said MS didn't use FUD. In fact, I said that I trust DesktopLinux to give me useful unbiased data as much as I trust Microsoft.

Stop using FUD to fight FUD. It's childish and stupid. Linux is great, use it's strengths to fight back instead of stupid lies and fear tactics.

Vista, and Linux. Yes I use both. What's the big deal really? They are both software tools which interface to hardware. Whatever gets the job done is the one I use. I also use Macintosh to get some things done. I consider the Mac, Windows and Linux computers I have as different tools. For example, hex keys of different sizes. Once the operating system one uses becomes a religious movement you definitely need to get outside and face reality

I really don't care for posts like this. Someone goes on OSnews and says OS choices are irrelevant, you need to get out more, and the chorus cheers. It's obnoxious.

This is especially dumbfounding, because it looks like you're suggesting that the way around vendor lock-in and incompatibility problems is just to buy one of everything. All you've described is an even more expensive way to give up choice. Please don't complain about people like Steven J. who actually care about having a choice. All he's trying to do is convince some people that Linux is better. I suspect the reason he talks about it instead of just keeping his preference in the closet has something to do with the goal of raising awareness. Aside from the altruistic aspect of evangelism is the selfish one: if more people use Linux, more of the computer industry has to support it, and the less frustrating his life with it will become as a result of said support. I feel the same way about Macs. It's not a religion; it's the simple ideal of having a choice.

That is the point indeed.
I also love Linux, but I do not hate Windows.
The difference is that, when I have to, I will use Windows, I don't care, of course, I will be disappointed by all the stuff I miss when I have to use Windows, but I won't throw the head up, panic, then freak out the way some people do when they are made to use Linux....

EXCEPT.....

I have been using Vista for months, and when Joe Public gets their hands on it, it will be less intuitive for them than if they had switched to a Linux distro instead.

It will be fun times ahead for us people in IT support, NOT

Yeah, grub rules.

It would be easier for the average user to figure out, as the whole thing is GUI-based.

gui doesent make things easier automatically.

its not like gui is simply easier, a configuration file can be just as easy, which grubs are.

I'd argue that for "the average user" meaning someone coming from a Windows or Mac world, GUIs are more familiar than editing conf files. They are also considerably more "discoverable", meaning you don't (necessarily) have to Google things or look in man pages to be able to figure things out.

Linux desktops are STILL playing catchup to windows 3.1 in a lot of areas

That being?

Application availability.

*sigh*

hehehe

>> That being?
(in regards to linux needing to catch up to win 3.1)

File managers for starters - thunar is the first I've seen that even comes CLOSE to how I like handling files... too bad I have to jump through hoops with fusesmb to even have it do networking... I can 'work' with nautilus by changing 99%+ of it's options, too bad it's so bloated and slow it chokes off a P4 so bad you'd almost think you were BACK on a 386 running Win 3.x - and don't even get me STARTED about how pathetic the file management is under KDE.

Font rendering being second on the list - even though it lacked font smoothing, windows 3.1 actually seemed to know how to KERN a font, something that freetype still seems to handle like a crack addict. Whe n i go to rea d a sect ion of tex t an di t's spac ed l ike thi s... I end up switching to a machine or OS that won't completely nebfer my text (interestingly OOO exhibits the same behavior on all operating systems, making it next to useless for actual text work... meaning it's likely running a mix of freetype and native rendering - BRILLIANT) I spend ten minutes on a linux box looking at non-fixed width text, I end up wanting to take a hot poker to my eyeballs.

Keyboard handling - thanks to it's unix legacy linux STILL cannot seem to figure out how to use the numlock properly... which is fun when programs like nano say "Numlock is on - use caution" or some such, then start sending wierd escape sequences instead of just responding with the arrows like it's supposed to.

Software that doesn't feel like buggy pale imitations - sure there are some really good open source programs like blender... but then you have GIMP and OOO which are tinkertoys compared to versions of photoshop and Office from a decade ago... and don't even get me started on that buggy steaming pile of crap known as firefox. (Leading cause of my telling OSS advocates to suck my...)

Mind you, linux is great for situations where none of the above matter - like a server... but as a desktop OS for day to day work it feels to me like a step back a decade or more.

Which is why I still say Linux is for servers, Windows is for desktops, and never shall the twain meet.

and don't even get me STARTED about how pathetic the file management is under KDE.

Look, you're the guy who will never enjoy Linux unless it becomes exactly like Windows, which it most likely won't. So why not stop bitching right now?

//and don't even get me STARTED about how pathetic the file management is under KDE.//

Excuse me?

Knoqueror and Krusader in recent versions of KDE are amongst the very best, snappiest and most usable file managers of any desktop platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_managers

Lots of green on that page for both Konqueror and Krusader.

Edited 2007-01-28 14:04

@Hal2k1
I appreciate what you're doing, but just save yourself the time and trouble of replying to what is so obviously flamebait. Ignore the jokers, they're just messing around.

//I appreciate what you're doing, but just save yourself the time and trouble of replying to what is so obviously flamebait. Ignore the jokers, they're just messing around.//

It is no trouble.

I am actually having a bit of fun, because I know I have all the facts to back me up, and the extent of what Windows fans don't know (especially about Linux) is apparently limitless.

Hunh? Linux is not that far behind. How dare you insult great programs like GIMP or OO.o? Would you rather use paint and notepad?
OO.o render fonts fine for me. Why don't you use a reasonable, modern distro. It sounds like you are using RH 6 with some incomplete, unstable, cvs addons.

Linux desktops are STILL playing catchup to windows 3.1 in a lot of areas...

Thanks a lot man... I laughed that hard I sprayed coffee all over my keyboard. Now I need to buy a new one

Fact: Vista has to play catch up on Linux desktops these days.

running 3 displays off two different video cards (a Ge7600GT and a PCI Radeon 9250) both Linux AND Vista fall flat on their face...

Try Xinerama

Well I agree with 2) - There is just too much diversity in the Linux world.

I just wish that some big distro would rise above the others and wipe them out of existence. That would mean that commercial software developers could finally port their applications to one Linux without worrying of 20 different distributions.

So instead of the current Windows monopoly you prefer a Linux distro monopoly?

No thanks.

//So instead of the current Windows monopoly you prefer a Linux distro monopoly?

No thanks.//

I'm curious. Why not?

Firstly, Linux distributions are numerous and there are several companies offering more-or-less-compatible variants.

Secondly, if the far larger percentage of desktops out there were actually Linux desktops, then all of the software companies whom make applications only for Windows would instead make the for Linux or Windows, which would only be good.

I'm curious. Why not?
Because I don't want to run on linux.

Firstly, Linux distributions are numerous and there are several companies offering more-or-less-compatible variants.
And ? They are all using the same packages from the same project. There is no difference between two linux distro out of the default wallpaper and sometimes 1/2 admin tools.

Secondly, if the far larger percentage of desktops out there were actually Linux desktops, then all of the software companies whom make applications only for Windows would instead make the for Linux or Windows, which would only be good.

The same apply to each OS. If BSD was 30% market share, if Apple was 30% market share, if Sun was 30% market share.

{{ //I'm curious. Why not?//
Because I don't want to run on linux. }}

That doesn't make any sense.

Linux is more secure, more stable and costs less. There is almost no malware for Linux. If you run Linux, no big company can barge in on you and extort money via an audit. With Linux you can run as many machines as you want, dual core / dual CPU whatever it doesn't matter, you can even have a cluster. You can run Linux on just about any architecture of machine out there, so it almost doesn't even matter what type of machine you have. With Linux, there isn't code to check on you, keep tabs on you, or prevent you from using your machine however you might want to.

I can't think of a legitimate reason why you wouldn't want to run Linux, if you are a neutral end user and owner of the machine.

Please come up with with something that makes sense.

"Linux is more secure, more stable and costs less. There is almost no malware for Linux. If you run Linux, no big company can barge in on you and extort money via an audit. With Linux you can run as many machines as you want, dual core / dual CPU whatever it doesn't matter, you can even have a cluster. You can run Linux on just about any architecture of machine out there, so it almost doesn't even matter what type of machine you have. With Linux, there isn't code to check on you, keep tabs on you, or prevent you from using your machine however you might want to. "

Atleast you got the price right. Linux isnt more secure then it's managed.


"I can't think of a legitimate reason why you wouldn't want to run Linux, if you are a neutral end user and owner of the machine. "

If you when you say linux talk about everyother alternativ OS out there you might have a point. But otherwise you don't... And if you actually talk about every alternativ OS when you mention linux it's a huge insult for the others OS'es.

//Atleast you got the price right. Linux isnt more secure then it's managed. //

OK. Given the same diligence (or slackness) of management on a Linux box versus a Windows box, Linux is more secure.

//And if you actually talk about every alternativ OS when you mention linux it's a huge insult for the others OS'es.//

Why? There are only three OSes one might run as a normal Joe average home owner of a machine.

One option runs on the majority of machines, but is expensive, insecure, is vulnerable to malware, 25% of these systems are botnet zombies, and it costs a fortune, and you are subject to it going down on you because the vendor makes a mistake about validation, and it could cost you heaps if you get audited.

Another option only runs on a very limited subset of the available machines out there, it does have fine software both stable and secure but it is still a closed system.

The third option has none of those failings.

How about people that just prefer to use Windows?
I know, it sounds unbelievable but they Are out there.
Okay, most people haven't had any experience with something else, but even professional people who have been or are using several different OS' sometimes prefer to use Windows.
And I think that's a Good Thing. It's Good everyone has different tastes and needs. That's why I hope Windows won't disappear but be forced to be a really good OS for once because the market for desktops get evenly distributed between all OS'.

I hope Windows won't disappear

Is this a joke? Soon some one will say that Windows is disappearing, LOL

Linux has struggled for 10 years to get a ridiculous 1% share. Windows is the most widely used system and it's the prefered system of many computer users. With Vista, I don't see Windows losing shares anytime soon.

Please come up with with something that makes sense.
I would prefer to run with *BSD or Solaris.

I can't think of a legitimate reason why you wouldn't want to run Linux, if you are a neutral end user and owner of the machine.
Because I like innovations.
Linux is just like generic drugs:
- always trying to catch up with proprietary ones.
- just waiting proprietary ones to innovate and then implement it for free

We can see it all the time rip of exposé/spotligh/dock, gui of windows/macosx, copy of proprietary software, etc ...

The real big benefit of linux (and in fact of GNU, linux is just the kernel) is making free and available for every one new technologies from proprietary software many months later.

Because any monopoly is bad. I prefer to use FreeBSD, not Linux although I don't dislike it, so only having a choice of Linux distros feels just as bad as only being able to choose Windows.

Linux doesn't need to be the larger percentage of desktops, just large enough to get developers writing for both platforms, and preferably for MS, Linux, *BSD, OS X for starters, followed by the smaller OS' out there.

It's all about using the right tool for the job.

//just large enough to get developers writing for both platforms, and preferably for MS, Linux, *BSD, OS X for starters, followed by the smaller OS' out there. //

The problem is drivers, and the soon-to-happen move to 64 bits.

BSDs can mostly use Linux drivers, as of course can Linux itself. OS X could use Linux drivers technically, but they can't because of the GPL license. MS doesn't have source for drivers for most hardware out there.

When the move to 64 bits comes, Linux and the BSDs will have a huge head start when it comes to hardware drivers. You can see this already, as Linux and the BSDs were the first on early 64-bit hardware by a long way. Right now, just about every Linux disto has a 32 bit X-86 version and a 64 bit x_86_64 version. Vista is still 32-bit. Vista drivers are still 32-bit.

Edited 2007-01-28 13:42

If I am not totally mistaken, Vista x64 comes on the same media as Vista x86. It is also now a requirement for manufacturers to submit a working x64 driver if they want WHQL certification.

Linux does have a 64-bit head start because it was the OS that manufacturers probably used to bring up their 64-bit hardware. But reputation has it that 64-bit support is a little hairy on both platforms since things are not quite as well-tested as x86. Anyone running x64 Linux care to comment on experiences?

//If I am not totally mistaken, Vista x64 comes on the same media as Vista x86. It is also now a requirement for manufacturers to submit a working x64 driver if they want WHQL certification. //

This doesn't change the fact that of all viable desktop OS choices, Vista is the one in the worst position for drviers. There are no Vista drivers for the vast majority of hardware ... even hardware that runs XP fine.

The driver situation for Vista is even worse than that for 64-bit hardware.

More accurately it would be a duopoly (Windows + Linux), which would be a far better situation that now.

The state of things in the Linux world is absolutely insane from a commercial developer's point of view - look at Adobe - it took them an year (?) to port Flash Player 9 to Linux, because they have to support all the different flavors of Linux reliably. Imagine how long it would take to port Photoshop. I wish they would choose one or two big distros (like Suse, RedHat or Ubuntu) and forget about the rest.

More accurately it would be a duopoly (Windows + Linux), which would be a far better situation that now.
I agree, a duopoly (Windows + Mac OS X).

The state of things in the Linux world is absolutely insane from a commercial developer's point of view - look at Adobe - it took them an year (?) to port Flash Player 9 to Linux, because they have to support all the different flavors of Linux reliably. Imagine how long it would take to port Photoshop. I wish they would choose one or two big distros (like Suse, RedHat or Ubuntu) and forget about the rest.

It took this long to Adobe to port Flash for Linux because they don't really care about this market therefore they did not invest nearly as much into it. In order to create a browser plugin for Linux browsers, you just need to code for the ancient Netscape plugin API that Mozilla inherited and all the other browsers had to cope with in order to support the existing solutions.

They had a problem with sound output for a while and were forced to choose OSS (in order to keep compatibility with non-Linux systems such as FreeBSD) so Linux users needed to use the OSS emulation plugin on ALSA. I believe that this was one of the biggest reasons for the audio and video being out of sync in the earlier versions.

Judging by that dude's blog that is a Adobe developer, the Flash Player code is highly portable except where it needs codecs in order to play audio and video.

They could port their other software easily if they want and they already have experience with that. They did a brief trial with FrameMaker on Linux a few years ago but decided to withdraw it. Also, their highend software used to run on Irix (I still have a original copy of Photoshop 3.0 for SGI with the booklet and everything) just as fine if not better than on Mac.

Photoshop Elements was entirely developed on Qt and its developers praised that toolkit back then.

Actually, some people argue that Adobe may have some of their flagship software ported to other non-MS and non-Apple platforms just to keep Microsoft at base just in case it decides to play bully on them.

In a nutshell, Flash Player 9 could have happened a long time ago if Adobe really wanted it. They just made a proper port at all because it probably helps on the bottom line that is, get the player running everywhere (including cell phones) in order to sell the authoring product.

Well I agree with 2) - There is just too much diversity in the Linux world.

I just wish that some big distro would rise above the others and wipe them out of existence. That would mean that commercial software developers could finally port their applications to one Linux without worrying of 20 different distributions.

Uh Ahem.. Redhat or Suse. Many scientific applications such as Maple, use those two as the defacto standards for porting their applications. It would be trivial for other vendors to follow suit. I personally run OpenBSD as my desktop environment but I run a CentOS box as an application server for apps that I don't want to run in OpenBSD in emulation. There is no need for one linux to wipe out there others, I personally find the *nix ecosystem to be fine as it is. CHOICE. And between the BSDs' and Linuxs' that is what we have, and that is many of us like it that way. Honestly, what do you think the result would be if one Linux just WIPED out all the rest. I will leave it to you to ponder the conclusion.

I totally disagree with point 1).

If you tell someone to run windows, everone understands not to get a Commodore C64 to have XP installed on it as it won't work.

However, if you say linux, it all over sudden should run on every piece of hardware that remotely looks like a PC part.
That's really disgusting. We *do* seel systems that are 100% compatible with linux because we do our homework: we select the hardware that works with linux.

And before you step in with the story that it's not needed with windows, you should roll out windows servers. Take a setup with a RAID that windows doesn't understand. Huh, no floppy drive? Uh-oh. Problems, no way you can install windows 2003 now.
(FWIW: linux can be installed without any extra software required).

It all boils down to one thing:

SELECT HARDWARE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE OS.

Not the otherw ay around. Easy...

SELECT HARDWARE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE OS.

Seriously, I don't know what's so difficult about this point. I mean, if even Mac users can figure out that the random piece of crap hardware on sale at CompUSA might not work on their machine, then there really is no excuse...

SELECT HARDWARE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE OS.

Seriously, I don't know what's so difficult about this point. I mean, if even Mac users can figure out that the random piece of crap hardware on sale at CompUSA might not work on their machine, then there really is no excuse...

Hear Hear!
Amen!
Say it loud!

SELECT HARDWARE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE OS.

Not the otherw ay around. Easy...

So very easy, is it?

Sure, if you're building your own PC (or perhaps upgrading an old one). But most people don't have the technical skills for that, not to mention that it tends to be cheaper these days to just buy a pre-configured Dell. Not to mention that if you want a laptop your choice is even more limited. Not to mention that if you don't have the money to buy a new PC, the point is completely moot.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying you can't just tell people *who are interested in running Linux* that "it's too bad, you f*cked up when you bought your hardware two years ago and there's nothing you can do about it".

I'm just saying you can't just tell people *who are interested in running Linux* that "it's too bad, you f*cked up when you bought your hardware two years ago and there's nothing you can do about it".

Yet that sounds to me exactly like what Microsoft is telling millions and millions of prospective Vista users.

Yet that sounds to me exactly like what Microsoft is telling millions and millions of prospective Vista users.

So? Is this a reason for Linux to be no better? I know this is not Linux'fault, but the end user doesn't know and doesn't care more. If the end user has two options: Buy new hardware for Vista or buy new hardware for Linux, I think he'll choose Vista because in both cases he needs to buy new hardware, and at least with Vista he can have a working system for his work and hobbies.

Support for Legacy hardware on Linux is much better than on windows. Not every piece of hardware is supported, but to argue that you need to buy new hardware to run Linux is silly. New hardware is harder to run Linux on than 2-4 year systems. It takes the devs a while to write drivers for hardware without specs but generally it does get written.

Argue that Vista is a better OS all you want, but please do not try and argue that in order to install Linux successfully you need new hardware. That is not only false, but begging for a harder install rather than easier if you are on the cutting edge.

Edited 2007-01-28 20:23

but please do not try and argue that in order to install Linux successfully you need new hardware.

I had to. Last year I bought an Asus K8S and when I tried to install Mepis, it wouldn't find my hard drive. Thank God, the store accepted to change it for an A8N that worked perfectly.

The K8S is a very carefully chosen example I will have to assume since it was notoriously hard to support. Somewhere in the 2.6 series of kernels it became supported though. In an ironic twist of fate however I have a K8S running Ubuntu Feisty. Everything worked.


For that matter I may be wrong in this but I believe the K8S was released about 15 months ago. So if you bought it last year it was still fairly new. Not old hardware by any means, and not 2-4 years old as I suggested to be the easiest range to support.

Then his priorities are all messed up and he has only himself to blame. I think I could pull together a pretty exotic machine that will run both with very little additional effort.

Desktop Computing is the domain of ordinary Joe. Which ordinary Joe do you know that even considers whats INSIDE the box when buying a new PC? Asks whether or not said hardware is Linux compatible?

Rightly so, open hardware standards should be prevalent. They are not!

C'mon', Linux advocates need to think OUTSIDE of the box on this issue. At risk of repeating the age-old adage....Linux is not ready for ordinaray Joe.

Sort out the wheat from the chaff, concentrate your energies on the most worthy distro's, minimize the CHOICES in desktop environments....heck! even ship a UNIFIED newbie distro which is suitable for first time use!

For Pete's sake don't EXPECT OJ to be able to pick hardware suitable for running Linux...Sheeesh!

C'mon', Linux advocates need to think OUTSIDE of the box on this issue. At risk of repeating the age-old adage....Linux is not ready for ordinaray Joe.

It is if you apply the same standards as for Windows, i.e. being preinstalled by OEMs.

I have a Compaq Presario laptop. A very popular model (I see lots of them). *All* of the hardware is supported, though some requires some bit of work (all them having to do with proprietary drivers). It's not very much, comparable to what I would have to do if I wiped the laptop's hard drive clean and installed Windows on it. Now, if Compaq preinstalled Linux on those laptop, there would be no difference with the Windows laptop as far as hardware compatibility is concerned.

So, yeah, Linux is ready for a *lot* of desktops, especially if you judge it using the same yardstick - something which pro-MS posters seem loathe to do.

But if you can find your hw in this pages it is not guarantee: the hw manufactures mostly not specified the chipsets of products, and it can change. You can buy bt878 or cx88xx based TV card with same product name.

Although I think I get what you meant with this statement, I have to inform you that this is not the best example to drive your point home. I have three TV cards (two with identical product names, but different chipsets) and both the BT848 and the Connexiant based card work flawlessy with Slackware and Debian since kernel 2.6.10 or so.

Re: the other points:

That "Linux" is not a plattform standard should have been clear from the very first moment on, due to the decentralized, modular and concurent development model of its parts. More, with the developements from the BSD and the Solaris camp, a divere array of UNIX alike/based/imitating/whatever operating systems with compareable hard- and software support is available, so that it is already (and will even more become so in the future) be possible to decide

- Kernel
- Userland
- Toolkit / GUI

more or less independently from each other. This introduces headaches for third-party packagers, but is on the other hand also a big strength (at least I consider this to be a strenght, since I'm able to have a consistent desktop/workspace environment across several different hard- and software architectures).

To cite user unclefester from a thread some days ago :

"We need to emphasise the use of open standards rather than standardising platforms."[1]

We have currently a very intense discussion regarding open standards in the Linux world, with an emphasis esp. on the issue of third party applications (LSB, Portland, Freedesktop.org, etc. ). Personally, I would prefer an Linux ecosystem based on open standards any time over the standardized Linux plattform you seem to favour.

[1]http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17023&comment_id=204358

Edited 2007-01-28 10:46

Actually, there is a pretty standard API for Linux: Glibc/X/GTK+/GNOME (and probably a few others in there). The fact that KDE and XFCE and FVWM, etc. also exist for Linux and have their own stacks does not mean that there is no standard on Linux.

Actually, there is a pretty standard API for Linux: Glibc/X/GTK+/GNOME (and probably a few others in there). The fact that KDE and XFCE and FVWM, etc. also exist for Linux and have their own stacks does not mean that there is no standard on Linux.

You contradict yourself. You have to chose between Qt and Gtk, you can't use both for your project, so there's no standard, neither Qt nor Gtk is the standard, you're free. Freedom in this case is not a good thing.

You contradict yourself. You have to chose between Qt and Gtk, you can't use both for your project, ...

Just out of curiosity, why can't a project decide to develop frontends for both large toolkits? Is it a problem with a license or is it just that you wouldn't do it and conclude from that, that others can't do it?

so there's no standard, neither Qt nor Gtk is the standard, you're free.

Actually, both QT(3 and 4) and GTK are part of a standard. I would suggest heading over to

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Specifications

and read the "Desktop" section of the current LSB 3.1 specification. The fact, that no "single" standard exists wrt to toolkits should not be mistaken with a situation, where no standard at all exists. Pretty big difference.

So, LSB compatible distributions know what versions of the QT and GTK land they should provide at least as an optional upgrade and 3rd party developers can always include the libraries in question on the installation media just in case. Everybody (well, everybody except you) happy!

Freedom in this case is not a good thing.

Well, that's your opinion.

EDIT: Fixed typos and misspellings

Edited 2007-01-28 17:23

You contradict yourself. You have to chose between Qt and Gtk, you can't use both for your project,

I guess that's why a program like Celestia is available both for KDE and Gnome (and Windows, and Mac...)

so there's no standard, neither Qt nor Gtk is the standard, you're free. Freedom in this case is not a good thing.

Sure...like there is a single toolkit for Windows apps, right? Oh no, wait, there isn't. Well, at least Windows apps all have similar UIs and follow the same UI guidelines, right? Oh no, wait, they don't!

Keep on using your locked-down, DRM-laden, monopoly-abusing, innovation-killing OS, and stop trying to spread FUD about the alternatives.

Edited 2007-01-28 17:25

Celestia was developed using the Gtk library. This doesn't mean it doesn't work on KDE. Doesn't Firefox work with KDE also? Firefox used also Gtk. But the developer had to make a choice, he chose Gtk instead of Qt. Using Gtk in a KDE environment is as bad as using Qt in Gnome. It's a terrible waste of resources. When 2 graphical libraries are the standard, I don't call it a "standard". Linux should have settled on only one and stuck to it. This would have been the standard.

Pardon my ignorance, but neither GTK nor QT, and certainly not KDE, GNOME, XFCE et al. are GNU/Linux specific. Does that mean, that other *nixes (Solaris, the xBSDs, when hell finally freezes over Hurd) have to decide too or is it just Linux that has to fixate itself for now and forever on one toolkit?

Does that mean, that cross plattform developers have to shun certain plattforms because they are allowed to choose just one toolkit?

What about wxWidgets? What about Java/Swing/Awt? What about Motif?

What about QT and GTK on MS Windows? Shouldn't MS Windows also have only one toolkit ?(Hint: I know that MS Windows supports natively only their own dogfood. But QT, GTK, wxWidgets, etc are all ported and used on Windows and to my knowledge in the case of QT quite extensively, I might add. Does supporting only one toolkit really reduces the number of available toolkits? Is using QT apps under Windwos also a waste of ressources?)

And finally, the big question: Who should make the decision (e.g. standard) and what to do with the ones that stray from this standard? Because the "downside" of the modular and open developement ecosystem in the FOSS world is, that too rigid/limited standards are not followed. The only chance to get many distribtuions abourd the LSB is to trade as little diversity as possible for a significantly better situation for 3rd party developers, and not the other way round.

Your "should have decided to choose a toolkit and stick with it" model needs a centralized steering commitee in charge of such decisions with total power to punish those poor souls, that have different tastes/opionions. And franckly, I just can't see that happening.

My point, that seperation of functionality/frontend and concurent implementations of the frontend using different toolkits is always an option, still stands.

Celestia was developed using the Gtk library. This doesn't mean it doesn't work on KDE. Doesn't Firefox work with KDE also? Firefox used also Gtk. But the developer had to make a choice, he chose Gtk instead of Qt.

No, they didn't. You can compile the Linux version of Celestia for Gnome or for KDE, and it uses the appropriate toolkit, i.e. Gtk for Gnome, and Qt for KDE.

It's a terrible waste of resources. When 2 graphical libraries are the standard, I don't call it a "standard". Linux should have settled on only one and stuck to it. This would have been the standard.

It's not Linux, it's all X11 OSes, including Solaris, the BSDs and other Unix or Unix-like operating systems. So Linux didn't "choose" a toolkit. Rather, more than one toolkits are available for it - just like Windows. Now, if this doesn't hamper Windows, I don't see why it would hamper Linux in any way - but I guess naysayers will latch on whatever they can find, no matter how irrelevant or innocuous it is.

No, they didn't. You can compile the Linux version of Celestia for Gnome or for KDE, and it uses the appropriate toolkit, i.e. Gtk for Gnome, and Qt for KDE.

I didn't know that. It's not written on their page in any case. And basically if they use 2 different toolkits for the same job, they spent 2x more time coding their application, which takes them back to stone age of computing, when you see how time is valuable nowadays.

And basically if they use 2 different toolkits for the same job, they spent 2x more time coding their application, which takes them back to stone age of computing, when you see how time is valuable nowadays.

They don't spend 2x more time coding their application, they simply planned their development carefully. You should learn more about programming before making half-assed arguments about the pros and cons of having various toolkits.

In any case, you still haven't adressed the fact that there are mutliple toolkits for Windows as well, and that Windows apps vary widely in their UI, and yet that doesn't seem to have hampered Windows in the least...

//If you run {Linux,MacOS,Windows} and it does all you need, what's wrong with not running one or both of the other two? //

Exactly. Linux does everything most users could want, at next-to-zero cost and with next-to-perfect security and stability.

Why run anything else, and subject yourself to needless hassle and malware?

Yeah, I can't wait dropping all the new OSes for an old crappy OS in 3 colors...

In the olden days (early 80s) programmers used to constantly fine tune hand written code to save a few bytes.
Because they have no choice. Now that computers are more and more powerfull, we can use higher paradigm for programming which are indeed ungry with CPU but allow us to make software faster (and easier).

I will just quote Matz, the creator to the ruby langage.
Often people, especially computer engineers, focus on the machines. They think, "By doing this, the machine will run faster. By doing this, the machine will run more effectively. By doing this, the machine will something something something." They are focusing on machines. But in fact we need to focus on humans, on how humans care about doing programming or operating the application of the machines. We are the masters. They are the slaves.

And guess what, he's right. Computers are here to make our life easier (even if you are a developper). Programming in the early 80s was a pain. I will never go back just to have an OS running on an old unsupported hardware.

just two cents:

* virtual memory
* memory protection

//The guy says Linux is better.//

It is.

// On none of the points Linux is better, not even security.//

ROFLMAO.

// I'm pretty sure Vista is no less secure than Linux.//

Why would you think that? There is already more malware for Vista than there is for Linux.

//But I'm also sure in all other aspects, Vista is light years away from Linux.//

It is ... in the rearward direction. Vista is behind Linux ... from the point of view of end users.

There is however one area Vista is light years ahead of Linux. Vista is light years ahead of Linux when it comes to the benefit to Microsoft's coffers.

It is ... in the rearward direction. Vista is behind Linux ... from the point of view of end users.

If Linux is so good, why less than 1% of computer users actually use it despite being free and Vista being very expensive? Linux has been around for years now. No one wants it, so stop lying.

//If Linux is so good, why less than 1% of computer users actually use it despite being free and Vista being very expensive?//

Linux has a majority usage in some areas, such as web servers and embedded machines.

Linux has way more users than Vista at this point.

As for the "consumer" desktop ... most people haven't heard of Linux, and the consumer stores do not give them any opportunity to buy it. As for the business desktop ... most businesses made a decision some years ago to set up their IT infrastructure as a "Windows shop", and now they are locked in. Very few businesses were ever given an opportunity to pit Windows & Linux on an even playing field & do a one-for-one comparison trade-off. Any comparisons have always been: how much to stick with Windows versus rip everything out & start again with Linux? Only in such a non-level comparison does Windows come out on top.

// Linux has been around for years now. No one wants it, so stop lying.//

WTF?? What is that reasoning ... you can't count, so I am lying? Is that it?

Edited 2007-01-28 12:33

Linux has way more users than Vista at this point.

Yeah, right, all people I know, all members of my family and all my colleagues use Linux. Actually I don't know anyone who runs Windows anymore.

As for the "consumer" desktop ... most people haven't heard of Linux

Oh, come one, all stores sell cheap computers with Linux preloaded. I actually know some one who bought one and who asked me to lend him my pirated Windows CD-ROM to erase Linux and to install Windows instead.

most businesses made a decision some years ago to set up their IT infrastructure as a "Windows shop", and now they are locked in

If you used Linux you would know that it coexists very well in a Windows environment thanks to Samba and software in common (openoffice, firefox...) that you can use on Linux and Windows alike. So, no lock in. Companies that work with software development usually mix Windows and Linux computers in the same office.

Yeah, right, all people I know, all members of my family and all my colleagues use Linux. Actually I don't know anyone who runs Windows anymore.

The parent poster specifically wrote "Linux has way more users than Vista" ... Vista, not Windows. Vista.

Windows has more users when counting all versions, but it's not unreasonable to think the sum of all linux users are larger than the number of Vista users.

Oh, come one, all stores sell cheap computers with Linux preloaded. I actually know some one who bought one and who asked me to lend him my pirated Windows CD-ROM to erase Linux and to install Windows instead.

Negative. It's virtually impossible to find a store that sells linux, not to mention one that advertises for it.

If you used Linux you would know that it coexists very well in a Windows environment thanks to Samba and software in common (openoffice, firefox...) that you can use on Linux and Windows alike. So, no lock in. Companies that work with software development usually mix Windows and Linux computers in the same office.

There is a lot more to coexistence than just sharing office documents. If you had a job, you'd know that. Companies that uses VB in their office documents (mostly Excel documents) tend to be quite locked in.

I am not the one to make the comparison!

The parent poster made the comparison. I merely pointed out that the parent poster was comparising Linux with Vista and not with Windows in general.

That's all I did. I haven't made a comparison between Linux and Vista in relation to market share, so don't blame me for your failure to learn how to read.

Granted it has none of what you consider those "failings". But what is a failing for you isn't for others. As long as you have a good antivirus, and as long as you update your system (Linux also has updates), then you don't have any security problem. Also, it may run only on one architecture, but as long as it's your architecture, you don't care if it doesn't run on your neighbor's Super Nintendo. But Linux has one failure that other systems don't: It's unusable as a desktop. It's sad because it's the #1 reason one takes into account before choosing a system.


Ehh? I never wrote anything about "the third option". You appear to have replied in the wrong post. That paragraph belongs to somebody else than me

This is wrong. I want to see your sources. I administrate a major newspaper web site with millions of visitors a month, and there is less than 1% of visitors who run Linux. Of course, if you take a niche web site like OSNews, more visitors use Linux.

Sources? International Data Corporation (IDC), gartner.

Your numbers for your "major newspaper website" (bleeh) are irrelevant. They do not show anything about the number of linux users. They only show the number of linux users visiting this "major newspaper website". I've noticed Linux users tend to avoid such places, while being much more prominent on other websites. So forget about your fake numbers.

//You compare Linux in general to a newly released version of Windows. //

Why not?

That is, after all, the topic of this thread on OSNews.

but it's not unreasonable to think the sum of all linux users are larger than the number of Vista users.

... and how long do you think this will last?

Probably not long, but I wasn't the one to make the comparison. I merely pointed out a mistake on Joe User's part.

Linux has way more users than Vista at this point.

Yeah, right, all people I know, all members of my family and all my colleagues use Linux. Actually I don't know anyone who runs Windows anymore.

The previous poster said that Linux has way more users than Vista at the moment, not Windows and he is completely right on this regard.

Seems like a pretty safe bet seeing as Vista won't be released until tomorrow.

There is about 5% of linux users on the desktop. Despite you and your fellows like the now-banned NotParker.

If Linux is so good, why less than 1% of computer users actually use it

Argumentum as Populum. Logical fallacy.

Oh, and Linux has around 3% usage. In a couple of years, thanks to China, it'll probably be around 10-15%...but that's irrelevant: popularity is not linked to quality.

There are many factor that explain Windows dominance, but mostly it comes down to consumer inertia and OEM preinstalls.

popularity is not linked to quality.

True, but don't you think there's something wrong with your rationale? On the one hand you have a product free of charge that isn't used, and on the other hand, you have an expensive product that, despite the years, remains dominant? People know how to burn CD-ROMs (don't people pirate movies and software?), if they wanted Linux, they would have adopted it a long time ago.

There are many factor that explain Windows dominance, but mostly it comes down to consumer inertia and OEM preinstalls.

No. This is wrong. You can have any retail store to mount a pristine computer for you. In stores, you can whine and have your MS tax removed and your disk wiped. You can also buy a Linux computer, so there are many ways to have Linux installed instead of Windows. Regarding inertia, why is there inertia when it comes to move to Linux, if people moved away from Netscape at the time. When there is a benefit, there is no inertia and consumers switch to whatever is better to them. I have seen a number of people switch to Ubuntu and reinstall Windows after much frustration. Switching to Linux means going back to stone age, so obviously so sensible person wants to do that.

Regarding inertia, why is there inertia when it comes to move to Linux, if people moved away from Netscape at the time. When there is a benefit, there is no inertia and consumers switch to whatever is better to them.

Because of several reasons :

- Internet explorer came preinstalled with Windows 98 (and as recent hearings in the Iowa case have shown, this was tactical measurement to overcome the existing inertia of Netscape)

- The choice of a browser is not as fundamental as the choice of the operating system (you still were able to run both browsers concurently, I have done so before giving up on Ms Windows. At least having two operating systems at one box is more difficult than having two browsers installed)

- The roles: While Netscape was the market leader in a (then) niche market, MS already had a dominant position wrt desktop operating systems. Using this position, it was easy to overcome the market inherent inertia of Netscapes browsers. MS is still in a dominant market position wrt desktop operating systems and Linux/alternative Oses are definitly not in a near monopoly position in other markets (server space is pretty heterogenious) to gain a better foothold in desktop space.

- Education is at least in my country as Microsoft centric as it gets. You don't learn "computing" in school, you learn MS Word and MS Excel. Essentially, students get trained on microsoft products while the goverment / country takes the costs. Not only does this raise the TCO artificially for other soltions (training costs), but it is also an important competative measurement, when most people stick with what they consider to be working.

The list could grow longer, but I hope you get my point, that the situation of IE vs. Netscape is fundamentally different from the situation MS Windows vs. the rest of the world.

EDIT: Note, that it was not my intention to suggest, that Linux should use a dominant market position in another segment to increase it's installbase on desktops. While it is *very* debatable if such a move would even work in the first place (with the fragmentation/diversity among Linux based systems), it would be completely against the spirit of large parts of the community, that have suffered from closed APIS and properitary standards in the past. Just for clarification

Edited 2007-01-28 16:59

True, but don't you think there's something wrong with your rationale? On the one hand you have a product free of charge that isn't used, and on the other hand, you have an expensive product that, despite the years, remains dominant?

Most consumers aren't aware of Linux' existence...in fact, many consumers don't even know what an OS is (which is why Vista is only going to really take off when it'll comes preinstalled).

No. This is wrong.

Actually, it isn't.

You can have any retail store to mount a pristine computer for you. In stores, you can whine and have your MS tax removed and your disk wiped. You can also buy a Linux computer, so there are many ways to have Linux installed instead of Windows.

First, you have to be aware of the alternative. Most "Joe Users" aren't. Then, as you acknowledge yourself, you have another set of hurdles to go through: you have to have a store that'll accept to sell you a bare system, you have to whine if you don't want Windows, you have to do a lot of shopping before you can find a store that sells Linux...Your own words support the argument that it is *more difficult* to get a Linux PC than a Windows PC.

Regarding inertia, why is there inertia when it comes to move to Linux, if people moved away from Netscape at the time.

That's a very bad analogy. Switching browsers doesn't require you to reinstall your PC, nor to learn a new OS and use new applications (apart from the browser...which all behave pretty much the same way anyway).

When there is a benefit, there is no inertia and consumers switch to whatever is better to them.

That is untrue, and there are lots of examples of superior technology that failed to catch on for many reasons, including inertia. Again, your previous example is inadequate, as there was very little inertia involved in using a particular browser. It's like saying "it's easy to move a 15-ton boulder, look at how easily I can move this one-pound stone..." You can't dismiss the inertia argument like that. I know you *want* to, because it undermines your position, but you're going to have to do better than that.

I have seen a number of people switch to Ubuntu and reinstall Windows after much frustration.

Again, your personal experience is not a large enough sample to derive a general impression. I myself have seen many people switch to Linux, and none of them have ever reverted back to Windows (though they may continue to use it at work). If personal experiences are valid, then mine cancels yours and we're still at the same place.

Switching to Linux means going back to stone age, so obviously so sensible person wants to do that.

Nice troll. If you want to stoop down to this level, then consider that if Linux is the stone age, then Windows is a dinosaur.

I'm fed up with these lies from Linux online magazines ran by acne-ridden kids. Comparing Vista with Linux is like comparing oranges with apples, or more precisely, comparing Minix with OS X. What is more ridiculous is the result: The guy says Linux is better. On none of the points Linux is better, not even security. I'm pretty sure Vista is no less secure than Linux. But I'm also sure in all other aspects, Vista is light years away from Linux. I don't know how Linux will catch up.

Thankyou! That was SO funny! I haven't had that much fun since I read about how SCO pwned Linux. Certainly beats running a virus checker on Windows.

I miss good Music Software (as in editing and composing, not in playing),

Rosegarden.

good Video editing software,

Cinerella.

entry Level 3d Apps,

Not sure what you mean by that...but I hear that Google has a Linux port of Sketchup in the works.

Games (that don't suck - please noone say "Tuxracer" now),

I agree that for "hardcore" games you need to dual-boot...but then again, Windows also seriously lacks games when compared to game consoles, so in my view its advantage there is limited (especially now that you can easily play WoW on Linux...)

an Photoshop alternative (Gimp is not)

Actually, it is. If you don't like the UI (which, honestly, is a bit of a lame excuse...it's like saying that 3DSMax is lame compared to Maya because the UI is different...), then try Gimpshop. All the menu items have been moved and rename so they are closer to Photoshop.

With Linux beeing such an extremely deverse target, i buryed my hopes that we will see some good propretary software ported.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. A software vendor can easily distribute a version of their software that will work on 95%+ of Linux distros. OpenOffice.org does it, Google does it, Codeweavers do it.

I whish people would only recommand apps they know instead of generating noize.

Rosegarden can't compete with actual Music software... i use Ableton Live and Rosegarden is at least ten years behind that.

I dont know Cinerella, but i guess you might have meant Cinelerra... which isn't competetive as well. It does have some very advanced features but requires twice as much hardware for the job than all commercial tools i know which makes it unusable for HD content (which is what i'm doing). I also experienced lots of crashes and it partly is *very* awkward to use.

I don't know what you mean by Hardcore games... i don't have that high demands for games... i wan't at least 3 good (singleplayer) first person shooters per year and one or two good strategie games like "Anno 1701". I tryed WoW but that bored me to coma. I don't see where consoles have an advantage, except if you realy want extremely simple games, like Sports games or arcade racing games.

It is not so much that i don't like the Gimp interface, it is just not made for efficient work. Everything you do in Photoshop does take more work and/or time to do in Gimp. Gimpshop doesn't change that a bit, it just stuffs the whole thing into an MDI like bucket which is even very troublesome and buggy.
Gimp is a good tool, but only when it comes to very simple things, like retouching away the wires on actors in Film frames, which is excatly why it is realy used for that purpose. If it would get even close to be as good as PS for more complex work, it would be used there as well.

On the compatibility... usually the Distributors offer an OpenOffice installation, but even they often get it wrong. In my last Ubuntu install i only got empty Menus because they fu**ed up. My Quake 3 didn't work on the last distros i tryed as well. Not to mention that my CrossOver Office version doesn't work anymore on Suse 10.2. So this *is* an factor, deny it as much as you want. It is not only an distribution Nightmare but an Supportnightmare as well (and i did support for 3 painfull years and know what i talk about).

I whish people would only recommand apps they know instead of generating noize.

I don't know what you're insinuating with this comment, but I've used all the apps I mentioned, so kindly come off your high horse.

Rosegarden can't compete with actual Music software... i use Ableton Live and Rosegarden is at least ten years behind that.

Ten years, really? You know, when you make exaggerations like this, you can't expect people to take you seriously. Rosegarden is quite capable, and full-featured. It may not be for you, but I've heard some really good stuff produced with it.

I dont know Cinerella, but i guess you might have meant Cinelerra

Notice how I didn't comment on the two glaring spelling mistakes you made in the first sentence of your post.

which isn't competetive as well. It does have some very advanced features but requires twice as much hardware for the job than all commercial tools i know which makes it unusable for HD content (which is what i'm doing).

I don't know where you came up with the idea that it requires twice as much hardware to do the same job, but it is patently false. Performance-wise it is on par with Final Cut Pro (though I'll admit the UI isn't as nice).

If you're more into professional editing, however, then I'd recommend Piranha instead. It's expensive, but it blows away the competition IMO.

I don't know what you mean by Hardcore games...

The opposite of casual games (like Bejeweled or Tetris), which Linux has in spades. BTW, most people that play games on computers play casual games, so Linux scores a few points there.

i don't have that high demands for games... i wan't at least 3 good (singleplayer) first person shooters per year and one or two good strategie games like "Anno 1701".

The best FPS ever made, Counter-Strike, can easily be played on Linux using WINE. FYI, FPS and real-time-strategy games are usually considered "hardcore" games.

I tryed WoW but that bored me to coma.

Good for you. Blizzard sold 2.4 million copies of their latest expansion pack in a single day. More than 0.1% of the world's population plays WoW. I myself stay away from it like the plague, in case I like it.

I don't see where consoles have an advantage, except if you realy want extremely simple games, like Sports games or arcade racing games.

Simply put, there are lot more high-budget games (include FPS and a few RTS) for consoles than for PC. That's where the money is, so developers are less and less inclined to develop for PCs (except for a few big names, such as Blizzard, Valve, Microsoft and iD). I work in the video game industry and have followed its development for more than a decade. Real gamers play with consoles now, and apart from a few high-profile titles most games come out on consoles first, then are *sometimes* ported to PCs.

It is not so much that i don't like the Gimp interface, it is just not made for efficient work. Everything you do in Photoshop does take more work and/or time to do in Gimp.

I disagree. Once you're used to the Gimp interface it's just as quick and efficient as PS.

If it would get even close to be as good as PS for more complex work, it would be used there as well.

There are a few things for which PS is better, such as when using CMYK or Pantone colors, but that has nothing to do with complexity. For web/video games/film I could do with Gimp everything you could with PS.

On the compatibility... usually the Distributors offer an OpenOffice installation, but even they often get it wrong. In my last Ubuntu install i only got empty Menus because they fu**ed up.

Which version of Ubuntu would that be? I've installed every version since Hoary on a variety of machines and I've never encountered this.

Not to mention that my CrossOver Office version doesn't work anymore on Suse 10.2.

How old is it? Did you write Codeweavers to ask them why?

So this *is* an factor, deny it as much as you want.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you. It's not really a factor for ISVs, as it is relatively easy to provide statically-linked, universal installers in Linux. IMO that has nothing to do with the dearth of commercial applications available for Linux.

It is not only an distribution Nightmare but an Supportnightmare as well (and i did support for 3 painfull years and know what i talk about).

Which Linux company did you do support for? It's easy to claim things on Internet forums, but that does not actually give any more weigh to your argument.

In any case, what you say doesn't make sense. It wouldn't be a nightmare for the distro makers, but rather for the ISV - but the fact is that it's not, and you have absolutely no proof (nor valid arguments) to claim that it is.

Rosegarden can't compete with actual Music software... i use Ableton Live and Rosegarden is at least ten years behind that.

Interesting statement since Ableton Live has only been on the market 6 years. So Rosegarden is 2 years behind the conception and beginning of programming for Ableton?

Linux is not for everyone, that is for sure. In my opinion it is not for Joe User (in the generic sense, not the OSNews reader sense).

There are however a growing number of users who are making Linux their primary OS. Will Linux ever topple Windows in popularity? Possibly but not any time soon. Linux is also behind in many areas, including multimedia production. That does not contradict the fact that it is a viable desktop for the more technically savvy.

Edited 2007-01-28 20:09

But not for the more technically sawy user who wants to do Music or Video editing or wants to play agame from time to time.

But not for the more technically sawy user who wants to do Music or Video editing or wants to play agame from time to time.

Just because *you* don't like the alternatives for Music and Video editing on Linux doesn't mean that others won't.

Linux is ready for *a lot* of desktops, and that's the simple truth.

Because they don't allways says what the majority of the users here wanna hear?

Absolutely. Linux needs to improve A LOT before even thinking about trying to compete with Vista or OS X. It's good at what it does (server purpose) but definately not as a desktop. With the selfish mentality of its developers who think that non-developers are idiots, I don't see why this trend would change anytime soon.

Edited 2007-01-28 18:38

I don't see why this trend would change anytime soon

Because the Linux Desktop world has been improving at a phenominal rate recently. 2 years ago, the state of the Desktop was pretty poor, but nowadays anyone can use Linux on most hardware without having to do too much on the technical side.

Nonesense. The Linux desktop has stalled. Main problems haven't been addressed. Some work has been done, most probably, but not where it is needed.

Edited 2007-01-28 20:42

Nonesense. The Linux desktop has stalled. Main problems haven't been addressed. Some work has been done, most probably, but not where it is needed.

Yeah, right.

The Linux desktop has progressed at a much higher pace than Windows ever has. One only need to look at the underwhelming advancement of Windows over the past five years to realize this.

Despite all your FUD, the Linux desktop continues to evolve at a breakneck pace. Soon, as it becomes more prevalent in the world's quickest-developing economy (China), we can expect it to improve even faster. MS knows this, which is why they renew their FUD-slinging towards the OS, as they know they soon won't be able to compete on features. In fact, with 3D-accelerated desktop developing so quickly on Linux, they have already started to fall behind. Add to that the dwindling number of new games being developed for Windows, and the increasing maturity of Office applications, and the future doesn't look to bright for MS...

I'm not saying that there have been major developemnts in the last few weeks, What I'm talking about is things like:

X.org working ootb with most distros now.
FT2 being included in most Toolkits to add decent font rendering to linux.
Compiz/Beryl allowing people to play with special fx.
Package managers that actually seem to work.
Decent 24bpp+ wallpapers and window borders that look friendly and professional.
General work on the Linux 'experience'
OOo actually beginning to beome usable.

These developments have turned linux from an environment where one was expected to download and compile X from the project website, just to get a GUI, into a place where people feel able to complain about the lack of pre-compiled Wireless Netwok drivers. 5 years ago, the though of running X on a laptop was somewhat risible for most people.

Linux zealots talking about how more stable and secure Linux is (sigh... /me looks at pwned linux boxes or FC4 hanging under heavy load with default kernel)

And why you being clueless should be attributed as a Linux' fault ?
Just tell me by what way was your Linux boxes pawned ? I bet you will have a hard time telling this simple thing.
Now, the fact that you're under heavy load has nothing to do with stability, except that your Linux kernel is holding it despite the load instead of crashing.
And what is this BS about you running FC4 and trying to make a point with such an old distro ?

how Linux supports more hardware (except its not... /me looks at unsupported DBV HDTV card, unsupported Siemens Gigaset USB adapter, unsupported LPT key, etc etc)

Which DBV card is it ? Most users (including me) don't even have an idea about what a Gigaset USB adapter is, or a LPT key. Only knowledgeable people buy DBV HDTV cards. How come you managed to buy one of the unsupported cards ? You're looking at straws to try to make your point. That shows just how well hardware is supported on Linux.
Also, I must ask if you're stupid : having FC4, you bought unsupported material on purpose ? You say Windows support the DBV card, the Siemens and LPT out of the box ?

how Cinerella is on par with FCPro and GIMP is on par with Photoshop (no comments)

And now you make things up...

I personally use Linux on almost all my servers and I think such ignorance and dishonesty would NOT help Linux adoption on desktop, but more likely slow it down

Let me get this straight : you put FC4 on all your servers, along with DVB card and Siemens Gigaset USB adapter and LPT key that don't work, and leave them under heavy load, while they get pawned, and then you come here telling us (Linux users) about how ignorant and dishonest we are ?
You're not even good at lying, you know that ?

Just tell me by what way was your Linux boxes pawned ? I bet you will have a hard time telling this simple thing.

Where did I say it was _my_ Linux boxes?

Now, the fact that you're under heavy load has nothing to do with stability, except that your Linux kernel is holding it despite the load instead of crashing.

Its _not_ holding it, it hangs.

And what is this BS about you running FC4 and trying to make a point with such an old distro ?

Because it illustrate that Linux has faults with stability. We gave up with Fedora with FC4 so I cannot confirm whether this issue remains in next versions.

Which DBV card is it ?

ADS Instant HDTV DVB.

Most users (including me) don't even have an idea about what a Gigaset USB adapter is, or a LPT key.

That was an examples of the hardware outside of the standard-pc-equipment area -- such devices usually do not work with Linux. Sure it's wrong to blame Linux for that, since in most cases that's due to manufacturer not releasing the specs, however the situation is there and lying will not help it change.

Let me get this straight : you put FC4 on all your servers, along with DVB card and Siemens Gigaset USB adapter and LPT key that don't work, and leave them under heavy load, while they get pawned, and then you come here telling us (Linux users) about how ignorant and dishonest we are ?

You're not even good at lying, you know that ?


Indeed, not even close to you at insulting and distorting other people's words