Slashdot Mirror
Can Open Source Save Hardware?
Culexus writes "Tom's Hardware has a interesting story about Open Source saving the hardware industry. Pretty good read all in all. Hopefully chip makers and vendors won't have to bend to the iron might of Microsoft any longer." Some good comments on how early-adopters and enthusiasts are being marginalized by the industry, too.
Was Windows XP Product Activation. This inconviences anyone who changes a lot of their hardware regularly, and many of these folks do. They upgrade to the latest stuff right away, and regularly build whole new computers. It's no fun having to call Microsoft a few times a year to get their permission to run a piece of software that you bought and paid for.
If only it were possible for.... OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE!
http://mediagoblin.org/
How it was the mass-availability of MS-DOS that made clones possible. Have we gone full-circle? :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
This article makes the assumption that Microsoft is currently or has in the past somehow inhibited hardware vendors. Now, there are all sorts of "hardware vendors," but I would say universally most hardware vendors have bennifited tremendously from Microsoft, especially around Plug 'n Play (once Redmon got it working).
I would say that for many of today's hardware vendors, supporting the Linux OS is more painful than supporting the traditional unix vendors which were difficult enough.
The problem is that there is zilch technical support for linux, outside of the open source community. Most of the boutique hardware vendors cant afford the huge support teams to handle calls on every version of linux and all distros out there. Plus, they have a good deal of their IP in the software and they are leary of giving that away to competitors.
Not to mention, there is no partner marketing bennifits with linux. At least Microsoft promotes its hardware vendors, and comarkets their products with Windows, including them in its collosal marketing machine.
To be fair, the computer world in general has bennifited tremendously from open source. Don't get me wrong: I love linux, gcc, bash, etc. NetBSD has been a huge win for appliance vendors looking for instant-OS.
However, to say generally that hardware vendors are being saved by open source is actually the opposite of what the hardware vendors are really feeling. My experience with every hardware vendor that I've worked with is that Linux and open source is their #1 pain in the butt.
Someone you trust is one of us.
That has got to be one of the worst articles I've read. Certainly that I've read, posted to Slashdot. The auther said abosultely nothing at all. "Hey look, neat new stuff coming out that nobody really cares about" followed by "I've got no idea if Linux can save the hardware industry."
Here's a big shock: the hardware industry doesn't need saving. They need to make and market products useful to consumers, and to corporate clients. And thats what they do. Because consumers decided that GigE and PCI-x really don't do anything for them doesn't mean the industry is going to burn to the ground.
Mod point free since 2001
Ok, so THG gets through this week enfuriating the enthusiast community. Posting infomercials labeled as articles, then throws the community this pat yourselves on the back editorial on Open Source? Anyone else find the timing a little suspicious?
It's not a matter of open source saving the hardware industry, and certainly not a matter of open source GAMES saving it. There are already good open source game creation tools available on most platforms today. Games are more about quality content now. It takes serious non-programming talent -- i.e. artists, animators and composers -- to create a modern game, no matter what tools (open source or closed) are used. And as long as that talent in in relatively short supply, it will graviate to the existing game creation houses and they will continue to develop for the lowest common denominatior -- consoles. The hardware industry will save itself by contining to push speed and feature sets. The biggest advantage a PC has over a console is the ability to upgraded on a regular basis, while the console is a static design. The article points out that next-gen consoles will have 'processor cycles to burn' but misses the fact that the latest PC will always have more cycles (or at least it will while Moore's law holds up.) And none of this makes a differce in the enterprise... Big business will usually replace or upgrade on a budgetary cycle, not on application release cycles.
I've always thought that a creed of Linux was to do more with less. It's the continual bloat added to Windows that drives the need for new hardware. Linux development strives for more efficiency. The only way Linux could spur sales of high-end hardware in the consumer market would be if they could finally get a stable gaming base. The lack of a killer app for the masses for so long is why most people are content with a $200 PC. They don't need anything better, because that $200 buys a great system.
I think the decline in new tech development will continue, now that most people in North America have a computer, or can afford a cheap one easily. Perhaps hardware manufacturers will concentrate more on useful features and cross-platform compatibility in the future, instead of making stuff faster just for the sake of making it faster.
In other words, what really bugs Tom's Hardware is that nobody cares about Tom's Hardware any more.
Consider "overclocking". Overclocking in the 486 era was marginally useful. Overclocking today belongs in the same category as car stereo loudness competitions.
Open source can, and has, done a lot for server-side hardware. But it just doesn't sell enough iron on the desktop to matter. Look what happened to VA Linux.
The next "must buy" computer thing for consumers will probably be DRM-equipped hardware. They'll need it to run popular games and play popular music. All across America, kids will be screaming at their parents to buy the new "entertainment-ready" computers. Open source will be locked out of that world completely. (Yes, you can write DRM code for Linux. But Vivendi, Universal, and the RIAA aren't going to let the decrypt keys out into the open source world. So all you'll be able to play is off-brand protected content nobody will pay for.)
...if OpenSource saves Hardware vendors, why dont they make drivers for OpenSource platforms (Linux, BSD, whatever)?
:(
Except for some companies like Nvidia or ATI, I dont see any great moves towards non-Windows driver development
--
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
no, hes talking about when XP says "youve changed too much stuff, call us and tell us why"
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
The biggest role I see for Linux helping out games from a technological point of view -- and even this is a stretch -- is if games need more RAM than Windows can provide and Microsoft has not released a 64-bit Windows. In that case, Linux would serve as a stop-gap measure much as DOS4GW did between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.
From the article: "you can't blame Microsoft for following strategies that don't help the hardware community."
:-) ). However, there seems to be an underlying struggle between the hardware and content-creating industries. The latter are lobbying for legislation that, aside from effects on freedom and rights of everybody, will also result in loss of profits from hardware companies. For example, they could be forced to implement a "controller" technology (e.g. v-chip) that not only makes the product less desirable, but also increases the sale price (or reduces margin).
That sentence opened a whole new perspective on the subject for me... OSS "saves" hardware but I would say the savings occur in the consumer's pockets (us, so, it's good
Either way they (hardware manufacturers) can lose along with the consumer. That for example explains why Apple had their campaign of "rip mix and burn": the mere possibility of those activities is an incentive that drives purchases of CD-R and DVD-R drives, new hardware, more powerful computers, etc. Of course some of these activities may be legal gray areas, but it's not a matter of doing them or not, but rather of knowing that they can be done, like having a sports car and still drive at 70mph. In other words the features may be useless or even misunderstood [for that particular person, not power users], but it makes people [joe sixpack] want to buy hardware.
If you take a paranoid point of view you could say we haven't lost all of our rights yet because another industry has something at stake... personally I think it's more of a side effect rather than a direct cause - since where there are liberties there's always somebody that can make a business out of them.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
I'll give Tom's Hardware some credit for mentioning a few key points, but I also think they missed one very key issue.
..but there are a few things missing here. Namely reliability and focused innovation.
What does 'save hardware' really indicate?
From the slant of the writeup, they're assuming that this means the creation of software that will spur revolutionary, fast-paced hardware development. In part, this is accurate, as these companies do need to release products on a fairly consistent basis if they want to stay in business..
How often do we hear about or experience first-hand hardware failure? Weird driver bugs on video cards, hard drives that have to be RMA'ed after 3 months to a year, heat dissipation issues, the list goes on. Undoubtedly, things have become much more advanced since the days of the 486, but on the same token, we're also being introduced to a different set of problems. The technology is largely the same; it's just a new set of boundaries and guidelines.
The manufacturers are pumping out products every goddamned month, mostly introducing only minimal changes from product to product. I'm sorry, but this just isn't realistic.. the average buyer doesn't shell out cash for a new video card or whatever every goddamned month. When the time comes to upgrade, we want it to be a worthwhile one.. not just a $300+ clock-speed increase or an even more ridiculously huge heatsink added.
I think if the hardware industry needs saving, it's going to take a change in how things are done. From a user standpoint, at least, i'd like to see a greater emphasis on *quality* for once. There are very few companies I have genuine, lasting faith in. Everyone's in such a mad rush to be first, to hit the best benchmarks on the goddamned review sites, that they're making quality a secondary focus to just releasing something. I see it in software, I see it in hardware, and it's simply ridiculous.
Take this, for example:
A quick search on Pricewatch for 'Nvidia 5800' gives the lowest price at $268.00. Not too bad for a decent video card; worth it if you need it. Then I check for Nvidia 5900, which has only recently been released.
The price suddenly shoots up to $401.99. I can almost guarantee that in a month or two, it'll be nearly the same price as the 5800. You're getting only a marginal performance increase for nearly twice the price. If you opt for the 5800, you're getting sub-par performance when you could've waited a couple months for the 5900, spent the same as the 5800 would've cost, and gotten better performance. In another year, or less, they'll release *yet another* product.
So here's my question..no, my challenge.
Knock this shit off. Instead of releasing 2 or 3 or 4 products of the same type in a year or two, why not release one or two? Focus on ultra-quality performance and product, don't compromise on parts and manufacturing, and let the market ride the wave for awhile. These guys are surprised that sales are down when they've helped instill a stigma of "save your cash. our current product will be obsolete in a week!" They're going for maximum price, crossing their fingers that they'll sell a bunch before they move onto the next release on their roadmap.
The other issue is where these guys are focusing their efforts. You can clock shit up as much as you like, but shitty build quality coupled with a lack of genuine innovation is getting us nowhere. 3D animators/compositors/etc, digital video editors, gamers, etc. all *want* high performance, no doubt. So does the home user, if only to avoid the dreaded click-and-lag demon. But how long can they keep cranking speeds before they realize that there are more important things to consider?
For instance, we've got DDR-II slowly trickling in, mostly on video cards. Why frickin' bother?
Where's the goddamned MRAM? Where's our truly solid state hard drives? Why aren't we developing cooling solutions that don't involve water or noisy fans
I remember it being the BIOS not DOS as the hurdle for clone makers to overcome.
running Lotus 1-2-3 was *the* most important aspect not ms-dos compatibilty, that came later
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Any hardware vendor feels the heavy hand of microsoft in the form of non-disclosure pricing agreements where they will only get the "good" (way below retail) price on Windows if they guarantee X, Y and Z capabilities of the hardware that they ship. (boot time, graphics capabilty, etc).
The other heavy hand of microsoft is the little windows logo sticker. MS doesn't just give those out. They make vendors pay dearly for that by bowing down to MSs every demand. why? because normal idiot consumers apparently don't buy things without the sticker.
Two of the three technologies that were mentioned, 64-bit systems and gigabit ethernet, are led by Apple. Every Powermac and some of the Powerbooks have had gigabit ethernet for years now, and the 64-bit G5 boxes are on sale and will be shipping next month.
I think Microsoft would be happy for people to buy new hardware. It would force many users to buy new copies of Windows XP and discard their old Windows 98 systems. But most people don't care about the new hardware; their old 500 Mhz systems are fast enough to handle email, browsing the web, and balancing the checkbook.
It is also hard to justify bleeding-edge hardware solely for gaming when a new video card costs about the same as a entire gaming console.
Many businesses aren't going to spend a lot of money on new hardware unless they can save that much or more with the new systems. For most of them, 64-bit systems and other new hardware don't provide much benefit.
The point is, there is no driving factor in the PC market. Microsoft can't make people buy new computers, the hardware manufacturers can't sell their products at compelling prices, and many businesses and individuals don't see a benefit to buying new hardware. But there is a driving factor for for Macs; Apple. Every new Powermac will be a cutting-edge system, there is no extra cost for a 64-bit system. Even those who might be happy with a 32-bit Powermac will buy a G5 (with a very few exceptions), because there not a sufficient benefit to them to buy a G4 instead. Every Powermac has gigabit ethernet, so there is no need to justify an additional expediture over 100Mb ethernet. Plus many of the people who buy Macs (video and audio types) need as much power as possible, and for this market it is easier to justify the costs of buying new systems. Everyone else will get carried along.
It is this lack of a driving factor that will cause the PC market will continue to stagnate, while Apple's will move forward.
I don't know what that writer was thinking.
He seems to pining for the days when you HAD to pay top dollar to play a game. Quite frankly, I'm glad those days are gone. Sure they where fun, but I perfer to be able to use my hardare for longer then 3 months.
I thinkits a grewat thing when you can go years between ungardes. I used my 400 Mgz chip For about 4 years with no problems running the latests games. the on exception is one memory upgrade.
To me, having a OS that uses a system more efficiantly is far more beneficial because you can play the latest stuff on cheaper hardware.
I do not know why he thinks paying 5000 dllars for a computer is a good thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
hey upgrade to the latest stuff right away, and regularly build whole new computers. It's no fun having to call Microsoft a few times a year to get their permission to run a piece of software that you bought and paid for.
If you read most of microsofts EULAs, you will find that you are only allowed to use the software on the computer is is *first* installed on. I.e. it is not allowed to transfer the OS to another machine..
With Microsoft you have no rights, either 'get over it' or do something about it... /. is not going to change anything ..
Whining on
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc