> What if you have a business with 100s of 'old' computers? Its a nice > deal Microsoft and hardware vendors have eh? > ... > For the most > part it is vendors not wanting to offend Microsoft by releasing code to > help Linux or any other OS. This seems to be the heart of the issue. Absolutely corrupt! The judge at the DoJ v. Microsoft Trial, when ordering the break-up, should have ordered the Windows OS to go open-source. It gets worse though. The new Windows XP is full of spyware progs, euphemistically called 'update agents' or 'activation features'. Meaning, you'll have to pay up regularly for 'software subscription', and let your PC 'phone home' to microsoft and send them god-knows-what info off your hard disk, or else the OS and apps will shut down. Add to this a shift towards 'web-ware' - apps that simply won't run stand-alone, requiring a constant connection to a central server. Even worse - Windows XP will take 'fingerprints' of hardware - HDD serial numbers, processor type, motherboard info etc etc, and will shut down if any hardware is significantly changed. If you want to upgrade your PC, you're up for a new software license. When Windows XP comes out, M$ will stop issuing licenses for Win2k/98/ME, which will effectively ban it on new computers. I expect M$ will also recall existing stock of Win2k/98/ME from shop shelves, and never supply it again. I might have been slagging off a bit on Linux, but I'm in no doubt that within 3 years, Linux will be a really decent OS for the home and desktop user. For instance, the RedHat 7.1 and Mandrake 8.0 installers are a class act David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Cakebread" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 17:48 Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] OS holy wars (was: Nostalgia (moved from devl)) > On Thursday 14 June 2001 09:13 pm, you wrote: > > > While I have the Anything-but-Windows Spotlight, I'd like to point out > > > that Windows 2000 requires a substantial amount of hardware to run on, > > > whereas Linux runs on a 386+. I'm going to step out on a limb and say you > > > probably paid mucho money to upgrade to a new PC just so you could run > > > W2k while I run Linux on everything from my toaster and Palm Pilot on up. > > > > Right you are. > > But... > > I'd be paying a lot more again for hardware that fits into Linux's limited > > range of drivers. > > I haven't checked in a long while, but USB products were more expensive than > 'regular cards' the last time I checked (a long time ago, I gave up on USB). > I think most of the stuff in your list is brand spankin' new hardware that > probably costs top dollar. (see below) > > > For instance, consider my existing hardware:: > > * Alcatel DSL USB modem - major ordeal to get working - thankfully soon to > > exchange for Asus router > > * Matrox Marvel G200 video edit card - only recognised as Millennium G200 - > > video capture and TV out capability is unavailable > > * Yamaha DX-SG sound card - the closest driver match produces garbled > > distorted sound > > * Epson Stylus Color 760 printer - terribly underutilised in Linux - most > > print modes unavailable > > * HP 6350c scanner - might work when I take the time to figure out how to > > set up SANE. But I hold no hope for getting OCR software that works as well > > as the Windows apps. > > * 3Com Home Connect cyber cam - forget it > > * On-Motherboard Athlon USB controller - unresolvable IRQ/DMA conflicts > > * HP 8250 CD Writer - I don't like my chances > > > > In contrast, all this hardware was a total breeze to set up within Windows. > > > > To head off some flames, I'll admit that the lack of drivers under Linux is > > largely due to the attitude of hardware manufacturers, who don't see Linux > > as a sufficiently large market segment to justify the cost of driver > > development. This is a sad chicken-and-egg situation. > > Actually Linux supports more hardware than any OS. Sure, that list is > comprised of tons of old hardware, but you can bet Microsoft and its vendors > don't bother to support old stuff. Whenever people ask if they should > upgrade to Windows 2000, what is the first thing they have to look at? > CPU, memory, and compatible cards. There are hackers writing drivers night > and day for 'old' hardware that doesn't run on NT/Windows 2000 night and day. > Cheaper hardware. > > Sure Windows 2000 is great if you want to spend money for new hardware. > What if you have a business with 100s of 'old' computers? Its a nice > deal Microsoft and hardware vendors have eh? > > Linux is behind when Microsoft tries (and succeeds) with things like Winmodems > and USB hardware that favors Windows. > > Yeah, you won't get a lot of USB stuff working with Linux because it > was geared towards Microsoft OS's from the beginning. > > I'm not going to go through your list of hardware, but you can bet they will > be added to the Linux hardware compatiblity list. The fact that they don't > work has nothing to do with technical short-comings of Linux. For the most > part it is vendors not wanting to offend Microsoft by releasing code to > help Linux or any other OS. > > In my opinion the most amazing thing about Linux is all the hardware support. > Most of it was done without any help from vendors. Pure reverse engineering > and brains. It is really nice now that hardware vendors are making open source > drivers, but from day one hackers have done it themselves. Diamond used > to be Enemy Number One to Linux, but hackers still put in who knows how many > hours to figure out how to get a $40 video card to work. > > > But then again, much of the problem is due to Linux's lack of > > standardisation, which means that the R&D cost of developing foolproof > > easy-install Linux drivers could be up to 10 times the cost of Windows > > drivers, or more. > > Give me a break! The only reason it is difficult to write device drivers > for Linux is because they are doing it blindfolded and with no help > from hardware vendors. I bet less than 5% of the device drivers installed > on all your distributions were written by the hardware vendors. > This has nothing at all to do with 'standardisation'. > > Most of the drivers are put together by individuals and groups working > because they want to. You're mistaken when you talk about 'lack of > standardisation'. The kernel is where the hardware gets connected to. > > Of all the distributions you installed trying to get your USB modem to work, > they were all based on the same kernel. Some were newer, some > older, but they all come from the same place. There is no forking > of the kernel that makes any major distribution better or worse than the > other. R&D costs? I know some distributions contribute device drivers, > but the vast majority are from individuals. If you would have bought > your cable modem thinking 'Linux' you would have found one cheaper, > or at worst you would have found one that works for Linux. You were thinking > .oO'W2K'. > > The standardisation problem has to do with where programs should > be installed for the most part and what freebie apps go with it. No major > distribution has had the balls to take the Linux kernel and say "I'm going to > make it better" and fork. > > > > > Believe me, if or when I can work out how to get all this hardware working > > to full spec under Linux, or replace it with compatible hardware, I'll > > switch to Linux full-time. I *do* like a lot of the Linux desktop stuff. > > The Gimp looks mean and bitchin', and K-office does the business nicely. > > And the range of other apps looks pretty healthy too. > > > > But for now, Windows 2000 with Cygwin installed is sheer desktop heaven. > > > > Yeah, I can imagine buying the latest hardware off the shelf wouldn't work. > Unfortunately a lot of stuff is USB and it is going to take a while for Linux > to catch up. Don't think it won't though. > > You may need Windows 2000 to print at 20000000 by 20000000 and scan at > 234234 dots per inch, but it isn't Linux's abilities stopping you from doing > so. Its only a matter of time before someone figure out how to do it despite > the opposition. > > This rambling isn't going to make your hardware work today, but you probably > didn't buy anything that didn't say "Made for Windows" on it. I can hardly > agree that you will spend more for hardware that will work with Linux though! > > It is tougher putting together a Linux box with hot new hardware. Reboot > into Win2K when you need those extra 324234 dots per inch on your > printer or scanner 5% of the time. Or don't. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rob Cakebread" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 15:47 > > Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] Nostalgia > > > > > On Thursday 14 June 2001 07:59 pm, you wrote: > > > > > You're running Windows 2000. That can make any computer feel > > > > > like a 486. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, had to. > > > > > > > > Normally, my system works as fast or faster under Win2k than it does > > > > under > > > > > > Linux. > > > > > > > > Sorry, had to. > > > > > > Ok, I'll take your word for it, but I had to jab when a W2k user was the > > > first to complain. > > > > > > While I have the Anything-but-Windows Spotlight, I'd like to point out > > > that Windows 2000 requires a substantial amount of hardware to run on, > > > whereas Linux runs on a 386+. I'm going to step out on a limb and say you > > > probably paid mucho money to upgrade to a new PC just so you could run > > > W2k while I run Linux on everything from my toaster and Palm Pilot on up. > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Rob Cakebread" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 14:53 > > > > Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] Nostalgia > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 14 June 2001 06:53 pm, you wrote: > > > > > > I've got my node throttled for bandwidth and threads. > > > > > > But with the constant flood of incoming data (not from my > > > > > > requests), > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > was sucking all my CPU, and making my Athlon 750 feel like a > > > > > > 486/33. > > > > > > > > Ahhh, > > > > > > > > > > *those* days! > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate having to restart my node, but the CPU load was getting > > > > > > > > impossible > > > > > > > > > > to tolerate. > > > > > > > > > > You're running Windows 2000. That can make any computer feel > > > > > like a 486. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, had to. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Devl mailing list > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Devl mailing list > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Devl mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Devl mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Chat mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > > _______________________________________________ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
