Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Mar 2011 18:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And over the weekend, the saga regarding Canonical, GNOME, and KDE has continued. Lots of comments all over the web, some heated, some well-argued, some wholly indifferent. Most interestingly, Jeff Waugh and Dave Neary have elaborated on GNOME's position after the initial blog posts by Shuttleworth and Seigo, providing a more coherent look at GNOME's side of the story.
Thread beginning with comment 466102
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: F**k this shit!
by darknexus on Mon 14th Mar 2011 22:34 UTC in reply to "F**k this shit!"
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

We the users will suffer from desktop environment quirks while the egos battle it out, watching Microsoft, Google and Apple laugh all the way to bank.


And this is different from how things are now in what way? They've already got enough reasons to laugh at the major F/OSS operating systems without even looking at the GUI side of things. Let's try Linux: kernel modules, no stable API or ABI, subsystems being redone and overlayed atop one another... should I go on?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: F**k this shit!
by korpenkraxar on Mon 14th Mar 2011 23:03 in reply to "RE: F**k this shit!"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

I fail to see how that comment applies to what I wrote. I would say the main reason that Linux as an OS has a chance in corporate is because of the open and fast moving development of a technically great kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: F**k this shit!
by nt_jerkface on Tue 15th Mar 2011 01:36 in reply to "RE[2]: F**k this shit!"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

This is more of the same deluded thinking that needs to end.

The Linux kernel is not magic. Both Windows and OSX can run corporate software without any problems. There is no kernel bottleneck with Windows or OSX.

The open process has not given the Linux kernel supernatural abilities. This type of thinking reminds me of WWII history where Germans believed their special Teutonic spirit would defeat the allies even when the odds were clearly against them.

Don't bet on mysticism.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 00:24 in reply to "RE: F**k this shit!"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"We the users will suffer from desktop environment quirks while the egos battle it out, watching Microsoft, Google and Apple laugh all the way to bank.


And this is different from how things are now in what way? They've already got enough reasons to laugh at the major F/OSS operating systems without even looking at the GUI side of things. Let's try Linux: kernel modules, no stable API or ABI, subsystems being redone and overlayed atop one another... should I go on?
"

First thing please provide a case requiring a kernel module. Remember most drivers in linux can be done kernel module or userspace. Userspace ABI for making drivers is 100 percent non changing and kernel netural. Yes 10 year old userspace drivers on Linux still work today with the latest kernel no issues. Some userspace drivers for Linux also run on Freebsd without change.

Now that you have a case requiring a kernel module please now look at what damage that module can do if it malfunctions.

Basically you want a secure stable OS. Closed source kernel modules are not compatible. So there is no requirement for a stable ABI for kernel space. Treat Linux as minix when creating drivers as a closed source third party and you are basically fine. Don't Linux will fight with you as it correct to improve performance and secuirty.

Layered subsystems even Windows has this. Subsystems being redone natural development of all OS's.

Another classic case of a person putting up a baseless argument. Linux kernel does not have the huge ammount of embed usage if creating closed source drives were tricky. Also userspace drivers put you completely out the path of the Linux GPL license and its requirements.

Being a kernel module on the other hand you can link by mistake against GPL only functions so leading to being in breach of GPL. The way Linux is design is to protect closed source developers legal ass.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: F**k this shit!
by nt_jerkface on Tue 15th Mar 2011 01:44 in reply to "RE[2]: F**k this shit!"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Linux is designed to piss off closed source driver developers, period.

They won't even keep a subset of the kernel stable for VMWare.

How long are you going to defend them mr. ham? They've gone with the F*** proprietary drivers attitude for years and Linux just sits at 1%. God forbid they try something different.

Even when hardware companies submit drivers they still have the support lag problem.

You know I bet Microsoft loves their F*** proprietary companies attitude. A match made in heaven actually. Ideologues pissing off potential partners which just keeps them on the side of Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: F**k this shit!
by lucas_maximus on Tue 15th Mar 2011 15:51 in reply to "RE[2]: F**k this shit!"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Interfaces are not supposed to change rapidly. It's a key software engineering concept ... the interface remains the same the implementation behind it changes.

If the interface does need to change you depreciate the old one and give people time to move over.

The only reason they keep changing it is either poor design or it is a deliberate attempt to force other devs to open source their drivers (if this is true it is another case of "freedom but as we tell you).

People can bash Windows all they like but a driver written for Windows XP in 2001 will still work with Windows XP today, the same is true also with Drivers between Solaris Versions.

Linux dev's really have no excuse.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: F**k this shit!
by allanregistos on Tue 15th Mar 2011 04:50 in reply to "RE: F**k this shit!"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

"We the users will suffer from desktop environment quirks while the egos battle it out, watching Microsoft, Google and Apple laugh all the way to bank.


And this is different from how things are now in what way? They've already got enough reasons to laugh at the major F/OSS operating systems without even looking at the GUI side of things. Let's try Linux: kernel modules, no stable API or ABI, subsystems being redone and overlayed atop one another... should I go on?
"

That's the Kernel no stable API nonsense?
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/misc/2.6/stabl...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 05:09 in reply to "RE[2]: F**k this shit!"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"[q]We the users will suffer from desktop environment quirks while the egos battle it out, watching Microsoft, Google and Apple laugh all the way to bank.


And this is different from how things are now in what way? They've already got enough reasons to laugh at the major F/OSS operating systems without even looking at the GUI side of things. Let's try Linux: kernel modules, no stable API or ABI, subsystems being redone and overlayed atop one another... should I go on?
"

That's the Kernel no stable API nonsense?
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/misc/2.6/stabl... [/q]

This is a key block of text.
This is being written to try to explain why Linux does not have a binary kernel interface, nor does it have a stable kernel interface. Please realize that this article describes the _in kernel_ interfaces, not the kernel to userspace interfaces. The kernel to userspace interface is the one that application programs use, the syscall interface. That interface is _very_ stable over time, and will not break. I have old programs that were built on a pre 0.9something kernel that still works just fine on the latest 2.6 kernel release. This interface is the one that users and application programmers can count on being stable.

Notice this is very clear to point out kernel to userspace has been stable from 0.9 Linux something. So there is a stable ABI/API. Of course everyone raising the arguement forgets the existance of these.
http://lwn.net/Articles/296388/ CUSE
http://fuse.sourceforge.net/ fuse
and of course Buse.

There are all ways to create drivers using the stable kernel to user-space interface. Now the question becomes why do you need a Kernel ABI in the first place other than the Userspace one?

Reply Parent Score: 4