On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Larry Marshall wrote:
>
> > <flog horse>
> > This is rather microsoft-like in tactics. It's not intentional on
> > netraverse's part (unlike microsoft's forced upgrades). But I'm a little
> > upset at only being able to effectively use win4lin for just a few months
>
> This is where I see the complaints to be misguided. The
> "microsoft-like" tactic is that of Linux, not Netraverse. Microsoft
> has a long standing history of changing its operating system and
> requiring all other software manufacturers to have to shuffle around
> and come up with upgrades that work with the new OS. I'll point out
> here that we've all had to pay for those upgrades and did so without
> faulting Word Perfect, Lotus or anyone else who was forced to change
> how their software interacted with the operating system.
Ok, So if this is the "tactic" Linus is taking, then why don't more people
complain to Linus about it? The simple fact is that it's NOT a
microsoft-like tactic. For Linux to grow in a direction that EVERYONE
needs, these changes had to be done. With that said, that leaves the
responsibility to everyone who Uses/Develops/Architects, and theorizes
about what linux is doing, etc, to make changes based on the
specifications made freely and openly available to all involved. How is
this misguided to think someone is responsible to deal with a situation
which as been properly represented, versus the one we have here which was
not properly represented.
>
> What we have here is exactly the same thing. Netraverse developed an
> emulator that works peachy with 2.2x versions of Linux. but the Linux
> development group decided they needed to change the operating system
> to allow a variety of things to be done. It was THAT change, not some
> sinister marketing plan guided by Netraverse, that has resulted in the
> current situation with current versions of Win4Lin not being able to
> be made compatible with Linux 2.4.
So you're saying it's the user's and Linus' fault that Netraverse did not
change to meet the needs of the users? Again, all companies, end-users,
developers, etc, have access to the API and all changes Linus and crew
deal with. Your arguments are confounded and lack substance for the
direction you want it to take.
>
> > when I paid with the xpectation (and netraverse implied this) that I could
> > continue to use this with 2.4. It's like microsoft saying, well, if you
> > want to use our latest office xp, you'll have to upgrade to windows 2000
>
> No, it's like Corel Corp saying "If you want to upgrade to Windows 98,
> you're going to have to buy an upgrade for your Word Perfect because
> the older versions are no longer compatible because the operating
> system manufacturer has made it so." For your analogy to be true to
> this situation Netraverse would have to have control over what occurs
> in kernel design. They have neither control or those changes or the
> schedule by which they occur.
>
> As with the people who still run Windows 3.1 because they don't want
> to upgrade a lot of software, you have that option with Linux as well.
>
> Cheers --- Larry
The analogy is a bad one, however, if you look at what IS going to happen,
Win98 Users will be no more shortly, because just like ME, you cannot use
certain programs you could on 98. This is a fact, sorry to say, and to
make matters worse here, MS want's to start making your applications
time-out. But that's another thing all together.
You must not try to bring an analogy of windows to linux. You can't do
that, they ARE NOT the same thing, will NOT be the same thing, and work
off an entirely different premise. In order to upgrade my Linux, I just
build a new kernel. And sometimes that may cause certain programs to be
less than useable with a new kernel. Here we have this issue, not because
Linus said let's screw everyone, not because Netraverse said We don't want
to help anyone, it's simply a matter of Kernel. 2.4 is a vastly needed
improvement and offers MANY things which the 2.2 series did not. The
problem here remains that Even between 2.2.14 and 2.2.16, you need a
different patch for almost every kernel. I'm not going to talk what ifs,
but if you go look, then you'll see that netraverse has different patches
for different Kernel series.
That fact alone says that Netraverse is accustomed to doing this for their
customers, and the fact that Netraverse has messaged one thing, done
something negatory to that message, then said they had trouble or whatever
making patches for W4L 2.0 for the 2.4 series of kernels, All when the
SOURCE is always freely available and MANY people in the world who write
KM's were doing like all other Linux developers and working with the
2.3.xx or 2.4-test series in order to be ready when 2.4 was out. That fact
says that Netraverse either didn't inted to realease 2.4 patches for 2.0
or that they simply changed their mind and had to reneg on their decision
and upset a whole lot of customers.
These are the facts as we know them. This is what has happened. So, if
you'd like to say that it is Linus who made bad decisions by moving the
kernel in a much needed direction, please do so. If you'd like to give it
more thought than that, and see that even Netraverse is an end-user of
Linux who develops a product for other end-users, and mis-managed
expectations, then say that. Don't simply blame Linus and Linux users for
the problems of another company though.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
