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 253241
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I am 100% certain I'm talking about GNU OS if you wish to discuss a kernel either Hurd , Linux, BSD kernel, Solaris kernel which can all be part of GNU OS I will be more than willing to do so.

I'm glad we are finally focused on the development model. I'll simplify it for you. Gnu kernels can come out as often as two and a half months, and development is transparent; meaning smaller regressions and they are fixed, greater improvements; faster innovation, all from having regular updates; better security; improvements from similar drivers often have *mutual* benefit to drivers of a similar type. Any device made available to a Gnu kernel can work *forever*

The propriety kernel like that of Microsoft Vista means the kernel only changes every 5 years, with no maintenance for overall security; stability, and when a change is made everything stops working or suffers major regressions, bug filled drivers remain do, as we see from Vista hardware support is still not on par with its predecessor and has been out since *last year*. I believe that one of Gnus kernels is having 3rd release since the launch of Vista this week.

There are no trade-offs.

Please focus on the topic in hand rather than creating lies about Gnu OS.

Edited 2007-07-05 22:34

Reply Parent Score: -1

supergear Member since:
2007-07-06

I am 100% certain I'm talking about GNU OS if you wish to discuss a kernel either Hurd , Linux, BSD kernel, Solaris kernel which can all be part of GNU OS I will be more than willing to do so.


As far as i know the bsd kernel isn't GNU nor can it considering GNU stuff is GPL'd and BSD has its own license

Reply Parent Score: 1