Linked by Adam S on Tue 14th Oct 2008 12:30 UTC
Windows According to the official Windows Vista Blog, Microsoft has decided that, in order to keep things simple, the OS code-named "Windows 7" will officially be called "Windows 7." Sayeth the poster: "since we began development of the next version of the Windows client operating system we have been referring to it by a codename, "Windows 7." But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, "Windows 7."" Of course, this introduces a major issue - if the version number of Windows 7 is, in fact, 6.1 or 6.2, as many expect, how can you call it Windows 7? And if the kernel version is updated to version 7, how many apps and drivers might fail due to poor version checking? I'm sure the upcoming PDC and WinHEC events will shed some light on this.
Thread beginning with comment 333769
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Drivers
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Oct 2008 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Drivers"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

lemur2 asked... "Being reluctant to upgrade your OS version is Windows-think. With Windows, it will cost you $$$. With Windows, you are liable to run into issues with incompatibilities with versions (think ... get Windows 98 to get support for USB ... think ... directx 10 comes with Vista only ... starting to get the picture? Think ... forced upgrades.). With Linux ... why not be up-to-date?
Because sometimes stability matters? Please note, the OP in the conversation chain is talking about having to install bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality software simply in order to have full hardware support for his hardware. "

If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-yet-well-tested versions of software.

That's life. Deal with it.

Of course, using your examples above with Win9x and Vista, the advantage of Linux is you can compile a kernel to get your hardware to work. Try doing that with a proprietary OS... --bornagainpenguin


Precisely.

Edited 2008-10-15 03:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Drivers
by bornagainenguin on Wed 15th Oct 2008 04:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Drivers"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

lemur2 said...

If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-well-tested versions of software.

That's life. Deal with it.


We're not talking about hardware that is bleeding edge, just the realities behind having to develop drivers independently and usually without the support of manufacturers.

I don't think its fair to call retail hardware bleeding edge or alpha unless there are issues with the actual hardware independent of the drivers used in whichever OS.

So do I understand the realities of the situation, I just think it sucks and people shouldn't be so hard on those who find themselves stuck due to the unavailability of tested and stable drivers.

Its actually pretty cool that as many people put up with the current situation as do...

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Drivers
by sbergman27 on Wed 15th Oct 2008 04:32 in reply to "RE[5]: Drivers"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-yet-well-tested versions of software.

Nice try, Lemur. But while I was dealing with hourly lockups of an alpha version of a Linux distro, Windows users were enjoying stable performance from their new Intel-based motherboards. (Your implied claim that Intel sells alpha quality hardware to the public makes you seem pretty desperate to come up with a defense.)

That's life. Deal with it.

This statement neatly embodies the reason that in the last 16 years(!) Linux has gotten almost nowhere on the consumer desktop.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

And that situation will continue as long as such an attitude is prevalent.

Fortunately for Linux, the old guard is slowly but surely being marginalized by new players who have a clue as to real users' needs.

As to concerns about upgrades being "Windows-think" as you call it... when are some Linux advocates ever going to get it through their heads that one's *time* has value? And why waste the time to upgrade to a shiny (and possibly unstable) new Linux version just to get what XP gives you (in this case, in more stable form) with a simple driver update?

I'm a Linux advocate. Majorly. But your defense of our current driver management policy is off the deep end, and makes it appear that you will go to any length to try to defend "The Linux Way".

Edited 2008-10-15 04:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: Drivers
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Oct 2008 07:18 in reply to "RE[6]: Drivers"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Your implied claim that Intel sells alpha quality hardware to the public makes you seem pretty desperate to come up with a defense


Its alpha quality hardware if it doesn't have a working driver on release.

A Windows-only driver is not acceptable. Motherboards for IBM-PCs and derivatives are not designed to run only OS from one vendor. Linux, Mac OSX and Windows all run on x86 and x86_64 architecture machines.

Even with Windows ... if you get new hardware, newer than the OS with which you try to run it ... then problems may well be evident.

This is not a valid argument to put forward against Linux. If there is a working Windows version of drivers, and not a working Linux version (even though it should be more or less only a slight adjustment to the code and a recompile to provide that) ... then that is an argument against that Intel motherboard, and not against Linux at all.

Windows Vista driver problems are, after all, always blamed on the hardware manufacturer, and never on Microsoft.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Drivers
by DeadFishMan on Wed 15th Oct 2008 15:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Drivers"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

"If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-yet-well-tested versions of software.

Nice try, Lemur. But while I was dealing with hourly lockups of an alpha version of a Linux distro, Windows users were enjoying stable performance from their new Intel-based motherboards. (Your implied claim that Intel sells alpha quality hardware to the public makes you seem pretty desperate to come up with a defense.)

That's life. Deal with it.

This statement neatly embodies the reason that in the last 16 years(!) Linux has gotten almost nowhere on the consumer desktop.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

And that situation will continue as long as such an attitude is prevalent.

Fortunately for Linux, the old guard is slowly but surely being marginalized by new players who have a clue as to real users' needs.

As to concerns about upgrades being "Windows-think" as you call it... when are some Linux advocates ever going to get it through their heads that one's *time* has value? And why waste the time to upgrade to a shiny (and possibly unstable) new Linux version just to get what XP gives you (in this case, in more stable form) with a simple driver update?

I'm a Linux advocate. Majorly. But your defense of our current driver management policy is off the deep end, and makes it appear that you will go to any length to try to defend "The Linux Way".
"

Steve, I do understand where your frustration is coming from. I truly do. My laptop has a weird and cheap webcam that is not supported by any driver at the moment (although there is a driver in the earlier stages of development that reportedly works for some people) and sometimes one just wants to use Skype with videoconferencing like everybody else. However, Lemur's point still stands: as you are well aware the OSS community has limited resources when it comes to code or maintain drivers for new pieces of hardware, specially considering that most manufacturers don't take the trouble of publishing the hardware specs so that one can take them and write drivers without having to reverse engineer anything or to allocate the resources to write and maintain the driver themselves.

If I were a driver developer, I obviously would want to get the latest kernel and follow closely the mailing lists to make sure that I will not be using a deprecated API or something along these lines due to the ever changing nature of the kernel API - which can be a source of frustration for some in itself - and that often means that I will be playing with beta or even alpha code. And it is obvious that my code probably will not tap into everything that the device might be able to do initially as no specs were made available to begin with! Yes, it is frustrating but that how it is.

To me, it is a huge deal that there are some kind souls out there willing to spend the time required to backport some bleeding edge hardware drivers to older kernel releases, even those on the distros' payroll, as it takes a lot of effort and dedication to do it. Most of us have not paid for this software and therefore are not entitled to anything so I'm grateful when someone takes the time to do it.

Unfortunately, our choice of OS leads to this sort of problem and no amount of wishful thinking can change that and blaming this or that group of people not only is unfair but is not helpful at all. One really has to take hardware support into account when deciding to use non-Windows systems. If you REALLY need some hardware functionality that is only available on Windows and nothing but Windows, then by all means go use Windows!

And while we're on that subject, your post is showing signs of a disturbing trend that has been growing a lot on Linux land lately that is the attitude of dismissing the hard work of the people that brought us Linux as we know it in the first place, the "old guard" as you call them. The hipsters came on board and they want to shake things and make them better because "they know what end users needs" and then out of a sudden they know better than the people that worked hard to build the whole thing from the ground up until now. Perhaps most people will not use xfig, xclock or the other old xutils and countless Athena and Motif/Lesstif apps these days but these tools served us well in the past and have their place on the UNIX ecosystem.

Linux does not need to dethrone Windows to become successful. Anything that is not Windows will not satisfy its current userbase and these people will not be satisfied until Linux become a free Windows clone at which point the things that got most of us into Linux in the first place will be slowly taken away.

It just needs to reach some critical mass so that it will be treated as an equal to other mainstream OSes by the industry players and hardware manufacturers. THEN these things will begin to change. Think about it.

Reply Parent Score: 2