Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sun 28th Oct 2007 03:48 UTC
"I recently read this article about how the Linux device driver project needs more work to do. I pondered this for awhile, and came to a realization. While Linux still does indeed lack drivers for some hardware, I believe that the lack of drivers is no longer the largest technological obstacle to Linux adoption. The thing Linux needs to focus mostly on now is completeness, not quantity, of hardware support." Read on.
Thread beginning with comment 281501
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Vista needs drivers
by ssa2204 on Mon 29th Oct 2007 02:02
in reply to "RE[2]: Vista needs drivers"
Member since:2006-04-22
Sorry lemur2, but DRM, WGA, etc. have nothing to do with this topic. From the beginning of this thread you have continuously tried to change the subject so you can rant, whine, and cry about Microsoft, Windows, Vista, etc..This is just tiresome and annoying.
You do realize NOBODY forces you to use any Microsoft products? You are free to use whatever you want, so just do it and quit your whining. Constructive criticism is essential to improving anything, your anti-Microsoft whining is not helpful, nor does it present Linux users in a good light. I know quite well a lot of people think very negatively on Linux simply because of the manner in which the users act.
RE[4]: Vista needs drivers
by lemur2 on Mon 29th Oct 2007 04:22
in reply to "RE[3]: Vista needs drivers"
Member since:2007-02-17
DRM, WGA, etc. have nothing to do with this topic.
I disagree. DRM for one is built in to the hardware drivers in Windows.
At a deeper level, I feel they are indirectly related, as they derive from the same root cause ... the whole proprietary software binary-executable-only paradigm. There is without doubt an attempt being made to control and limit your use of your own computer via this whole paradigm. You just have to read a EULA to see it.
Constructive criticism is essential to improving anything, your anti-Microsoft whining is not helpful, nor does it present Linux users in a good light. I know quite well a lot of people think very negatively on Linux simply because of the manner in which the users act.
Why is it not "constructive criticism" to point out the dire situation with Windows hardware drivers?
There is a saying which fits, here. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink". All that I am trying to do is highlight how oppressive the Windows scene is, and how it strips you of rights. Not my rights, YOUR RIGHTS.
You do realize NOBODY forces you to use any Microsoft products?
Of course I realise that. I know it because I don't actually use Microsoft products. You do realise that I am trying to help other people see that they too DON'T HAVE TO USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS if they don't want to, don't you? Hmmm?
The fact that you claim people will think negatively of me and Linux just because you claim that I am "whining" is a debating technique I would describe as "misdirection".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdirection
So, to demonstrate that I am actually being helpful here, despite the utterly unsupported claim above that "your anti-Microsoft whining is not helpful", I hereby present some hints on how some ordinary user who feels they MUST continue with Windows (and who has been persuaded by the media misdirection that Linux would be too hard for them) can have some hope of getting out from under the oppression:
http://nixedblog.thenixedreport.com/?p=111
There. That will hopefully get you some small baby steps towards software freedom.
I truly hope this helps you.
Edited 2007-10-29 04:28
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-02-17
Not entirely.
WGA, DRM and activation are all "features" of Windows that can make it not work, or work only in a degraded or reduced functionality mode, with your hardware.
DRM in particular is a messy intertwining of hardware drivers and the core of the OS that can result in degraded performance of your hardware. Deliberately.
It must be said, Windows has a lot of issues that derive from the basic fact that the source code is kept secret. All of these issues affect the end user, who has actually paid for the hardware, but the whole paradigm of keeping the source code secret and supplying binary-only copies of software is done purely and utterly in the interests of the hardware/software producer. Yet the consumer has to wear the expensive consequences.
It isn't so much Microsoft that I dislike, but rather the whole business model of closed source software, which ultimately and repeatedly ends up screwing the very people who are paying for the equipment.
Forced obsolescence (through software upgrade) of working functional hardware, for example, wouldn't be possible without closed-source drivers. Likewise, degradation of the video quality over an "untrusted" (by the RIAA) video path wouldn't be possible unless the OS was both complicit in the DRM scheme and also strictly closed-source.
All of these various mechanisms of screwing the end users and consumers ultimately rely on keeping secrets from the people who have actually paid for the equipment.
How is that ethical?
Edited 2007-10-29 00:17