Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2007 09:11 UTC, submitted by Tim Alson
Hardware, Embedded Systems Dell has taken the unusual step - for a PC vendor of its size - of toning down its sales pitch for Microsoft's Vista operating system and warning businesses of the migration challenges that lie ahead for them. The step is particularly unusual because one of the issues the hardware vendor is warning business about is the extra hardware they will need to buy.
Thread beginning with comment 253226
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

The only thing you can say is the "FSF" hasn't done a lot of code in GNU's kernel, and it hasn't. I am not talking about a kernel. I talking about an OS.


The GNU kernel is called Herd, and it has been in development for so long it has kind of become a joke. And you were talking about a kernel, because we were discussing Linux's driver model. For someone who is such a huge fan of Linux, you really need to get your facts straight.

The only think you are arguing is that Vista's still being in beta, and having poor hardware support is excusable, which its not. You say its not the fault of Microsoft and *try* and use Gnu's kernel as an example of poor hardware support when Gnu has both excellent hardware support even with limited access to hardware; 70,000 employees, Billions in the bank...and lets face it being a Monopolistic OS.


I didnt argue anything about Vista. I am not talking about vista. I am talking about using a HAL for everything as opposed to having drivers run in kernel space. I didn't say it had poor hardware support, I listed several common types of devices that linux devs have had trouble supporting through no fault of their own.

Please do a better job reading my posts before flaming me.

You continue by perpetuating the lie that on Linux you have to *compile* stuff to get things working in the kernel, and you lie that common devices don't have support under Gnu.


Binaries don't magically compile themselves, they have to come from somewhere. In the OSS world, the source is there so it is no problem, in the commercial world, that task is placed on individual vendors.

As for common devices, it is hard enough to reverse engineer hardware you dont have specs for. It is insanely hard when half the processing is done on the hardware, the other half is done with software which is embedded in the drivers, as is the case with the stuff I mentioned.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"The GNU kernel is called Herd, and it has been in development for so long it has kind of become a joke. And you were talking about a kernel, because we were discussing Linux's driver model. For someone who is such a huge fan of Linux, you really need to get your facts straight. "

I think your talking about "Hurd". http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html and If the kernel was the *only* part of the *modular* operating system I use. You might have a point, unlike Vista users I have a *choice* between kernels, based on my *my* requirements. I simply chose one that comes under a GNU license. That just happens to be the best.

I am perfectly willing to discuss the Open development development model that attracted Linus to use the Gnu License in the first place over choosing a more proprietary License but you only seem interested in spreading lies about Gnu compatibility, and making poor excuses for Vista's shameful hardware support.

Binaries do come from somewhere, normally from what is know in the Gnu World as a Distribution, which in essence provides a bundled choice of a variety of applications; kernels; desktop etc etc, and normally includes a package manager to add your own. All the main Distributions OpenBSD; Ubuntu; Fedora; Novell etc come in binary form. Open source just allows you see the source, but it does not mean you have to compile it yourself. In fact these distributions are made up of Free software as well, this does not mean you don't have to pay for it, but means you can run, copy, distribute, study, change the code. It does not force you to do things however. They also include applications *only* available in binary form.

Often hardware specifications are *available*; Work on Gnu's kernel is predominately done by companies(read commercial) with Hobbiests only producing 3.5% of the work. Please to not lie about its development. In fact you should support those companies that, support open-source, becuase it improves *your* chance of this hardware having continued support in future, continuous improvements; compatibility etc etc. Otherwise you end up with major regressions or your hardware not being supported at all like under Vista.

Edited 2007-07-05 21:34

Reply Parent Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I think your talking about "Hurd". http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html and If the kernel was the *only* part of the *modular* operating system I use. You might have a point, unlike Vista users I have a *choice* between kernels, based on my *my* requirements. I simply chose one that comes under a GNU license. That just happens to be the best.


There you have it. Hurd is the kernel part of the GNU operating system. We are not talking about GNU, we are talking about Linux.


I am perfectly willing to discuss the Open development development model that attracted Linus to use the Gnu License in the first place over choosing a more proprietary License but you only seem interested in spreading lies about Gnu compatibility, and making poor excuses for Vista's shameful hardware support.


I think you have a complex or something.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT VISTA

how many times do I have to say it?

Binaries do come from somewhere, normally from what is know in the Gnu World as a Distribution, which in essence provides a bundled choice of a variety of applications; kernels; desktop etc etc, and normally includes a package manager to add your own. All the main Distributions OpenBSD; Ubuntu; Fedora; Novell etc come in binary form. Open source just allows you see the source, but it does not mean you have to compile it yourself. In fact these distributions are made up of Free software as well, this does not mean you don't have to pay for it, but means you can run, copy, distribute, study, change the code. It does not force you to do things however. They also include applications *only* available in binary form.


That is a really long explanation that has nothing to do with the discussion that was going on in this thread about abstraction layers vs kernel modules for driver development.

I am sorry if English is not your first language, I will try to phrase this another way since you seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

The Linux Way is to have drivers as part of the kernel. This has several benefits, but one of the negative sides is that any time the kernel changes at all, the drivers have to change. For open source, this is no problem, as most of the time it just needs a recompile to a few lines changed. This is not a big issue for open source drivers, as the person who decides to maintain the code does the work. On the other hand, businesses who choose not to open their code have a much more difficult time, they will need spend their resources on maintaining their driver against an ever changing kernel. Since drivers are only there to help hardware sell, they are making no real money off of this work.

On the flip side, the windows way is to have the drivers plug into an abstraction layer which does not change throughout the life of the os. That means they are only coding against a single ABI, not an ABI that changes even during bug fix patches. Hardware companies love this, as they only have to do the work once. That is why whenever a new version of windows comes out, all the bargin bin hardware that people had by companies which no longer exist suddenly end up with stuff that will never work with any future version of windows. It is also a big part of the reason that vendors are much happier to support windows, as it takes significantly less longterm work (the other reason being the whole 90% of the world using the platform thing.)

Both models have advantages and disadvantages. My comment is that it would not make sense going the linux way for windows, not that the linux way is inferior at all. In fact, there are plenty of instances where hardware is supported under linux and will be until the end of time, while on the windows side it stopped working in the XP era (the SANE project has plenty of examples of this). It is far more difficult to reverse engineer the hardware, but once it is done it is done forever. Again, tradeoffs.

Last time, I was not talking about what you seem to think I was talking about. My view of the technology world does not consist of some grand battle between good and evil, and there are plenty of times that I will comment on something that has NOTHING to do with the superiority or inferiority of windows or linux.

Reply Parent Score: 3