Slashdot Mirror
Follow Up to "Linux's Achilles Heel"
donheff writes "Fred Langa has posted an Informationweek online followup to his "Linux's Achilles Heel" column that drew a lot of attention on slashdot recently. He responds to several of the most common criticisms and 'posits that high-priced commercial Linux vendors are on a suicidal course, unless they lower prices to accentuate their advantages over Windows.'"
...that future Linux distros will move away from being "Linux" and toward being independent OSes. They'd still retain the Linux kernel, and perhaps some of the CLI userland, but the GUI and standard programs will be proprietary.
Apple has already accomplished this with BSD and OS X. Looking at the Java Desktop System, I think that this is Sun's endgame as well. For now they'll leverage everything Linux, then slowly replace all programs with Java ones, and the Desktop with Java Looking Glass. It's hard to say how it will work out, but I wish them the best.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
... Legitimate TCO analysis studies out there? Obviously it's different from company to company, but it would be nice if there were something we could point to when we tell our various employers that they should be using Free Software.
~dijjnn
To me, the answer is obvious: The commercial Linuxes should reduce their prices. That will instantly reduce the expectations of the end-user community and avoid the direct comparison to Windows' level of support. Linux will again be a bargain, and issues like incomplete hardware support and other rough edges will matter much less.
Commerical linux companies that have a bunch of support and execs willing to lower prices to make linux itself a bargain while lowering their profit margin and revenue?
I think I'll see a gramatically correct slashdot article before that happens.
-Cyc
/.'s 10 Millionth
Achilles Heel?
...Don't hurt me! I'm not the one making the Troy references!...
That Linux is a terrible actor with a great body?
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
"lower prices to accentuate their advantages over Windows"
So, Microsoft raises it's prices to accentuate it's disadvantages over Linux?
Commercial distros, last time I checked, are still a hell of alot cheaper than Windows. Employees of Commercial Linux Distros still need to be paid.
The price from suse for five copies of linux is $598. Isn't this still almost half the price of Microsoft Operating Systems?
To me, it seems to me that RedHat would be the kind of company that would lower prices and haggle with you just to get your buisness. A lot of people just look at the price and think it is too expensive. I bet if you got a sales rep on the phone you could make deals.
IMHO
PC users don't need high priced commercial Linux distros.
Quick site for those who don't know who Achilles was or the significance of the heel.
l
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/achilles.htm
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
It would be good if the Linux community, as a whole, saw these criticisms in a positive light rather than getting our collective backs up and getting on the defensive. If Linux is ever going to replace Windows, we all have to be prepared to listen to criticism and then do something to correct the weaknesses, even if the weaknesses are only perceived, because to the perceiver, perception is reality.
Free Firefox news reader.
Putting aside the other issues for a moment, is an article that essentially cherry-picks forum posts from random people -- specifically the ones that look the most foolish and are most easily refuted -- anything other than sensationalistic journalism?
;)
Before you answer, keep in mind I'm going to pick the most foolish replies that are most easily refuted and write an article about it.
His points seem valid enough to me and while Linux beats M$ hands down on many points, there are still areas where Linux has to step up before it will be an attractive alternative to Windows across the board.
Having said that it is attractive in many cases now. I migrated all of my employee workstations to Fedora a few months ago and couldn't be more pleased with the results.
This way to the egress...
Apple has already accomplished this with BSD and OS X. Looking at the Java Desktop System, I think that this is Sun's endgame as well. For now they'll leverage everything Linux, then slowly replace all programs with Java ones, and the Desktop with Java Looking Glass. It's hard to say how it will work out, but I wish them the best.
... that it is a defacto standard system that runs the same basic flavor of *NIX on multiple hardware platforms, irrespective of distribution, CPU type, 32-bit vs. 64-bit, 1-way vs. N-way processors, etc.
I don't.
It is exactly this sort of shit that nearly killed UNIX in the 1980s and allowed Microsoft the opportunity to supplant technically superior systems with their shoddy software and then leverage that toehold into a desktop monopoly.
Fragmentation is bad for everyone. Sun, HP, et. al. made this mistake before. If they insist on repeating it (and I believe Sun is perfectly capable of repeating acts of inane stupidity perpetually, as they really do seem to have difficulty learning from past mistakes -- remember sunview, openwindows, etc.) they will meet the same fate as before, this time with no one to rescue them.
Apple is different, in that they have always had their own OS and their own niche, and have used their underlying BSD system to actually broaden that platform some. What you are describing for Sun et. al. is a narrowing of their (Linux) platform, and undermining one of the great values of Linux
Lose that and your right back to the state of UNIX circa 1990, and that wasn't a pretty picture (or a viable state of affairs, with every hardware manufacturer's proprietary system incompatible with everyone elses).
Fragmentation is bad, and I do not "wish the best" for anyone trying to fragment the free software world in general and Linux in particular. Quite the opposite: I hope any such efforts fail miserably and teach a lesson certain parties seem quite challenged to learn, no matter how often they burn themselves trying.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
My company has a .NET shop for development with many of our internal applications going to ASP .NET. We're actually exploring only using windows machines for developers and managers/executives and turning all of the lower level end user machines to linux clients since all they really need is a browser.
.NET environment with the cost savings of linux.
Not sure how it will work out, but it seems to me a good way to leverage the power and ease of the
I think there are two issues that plague Linux:
1. Will the software and/or software driver be able to be loaded and unloaded easily without a complete system reboot? They're getting better but we're not there just yet.
2. Will we get Linux drivers that take FULL advantage of the hardware? That means something like supporting all the soundcard functions of the Sound Blaster Live! and Audigy sound cards, all the graphics-processing functions of the graphics card chipsets from ATI and nVidia, and all the functions of all-in-one printers like the Hewlett-Packard OfficeJet 6110.
It's the hardware driver support issue that is currently the bane of Linux, though of course this is less of a problem with very recent Linux commercial distributions.
Agree or disagree with the author, there is one thing he shows quite clearly: Many Linux users would rather attack than help. Regardless of whether it's an EBKAC problem or not, don't you people think that you should be using polite language to discuss the issue? A little bit of "Oh, it's all right. You merely did this wrong. Now you're up and going and you know for next time. :-)" would go a long way toward getting Linux a positive review. Instead users are assailed as "stoopid" and "the real problem is that you don't know what you're doing". This is extremely frustrating!
I myself have years of experience with Linux, *BSD, Solaris, and several other Unixes. When I try to point out a deficiency that I think should be fixed (binary compatibly, PLEASE) I merely get the "you're stupid and don't know anything about Linux", or the "You're using the wrong distro. MY distro doesn't have this problem!" Of course, you can switch, run into some other problem, then be told, "Well this OTHER distro (which you were previously using) doesn't have this issue! You should switch!"
In all fairness, many people have managed to be polite, as evidenced by many of the replies I received in my Linux reviews. Unfortunately, one bad apple tends to spoil the bunch. Stop the fighting and name calling! Work together! So much more will be accomplished that way.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
No matter how Pro-Linux anyone is they have to realize that charging as much for a distro of Linux as a copy of Windows XP is wrong. Constantly I read on Slashdot how MS is overpriced and Windows XP is not worth even half of what the retail price is but when this guy comes out and says that commerical distos need to reduce their prices the pro-Linux slashdotters go wild and a flameware ensues. I think what he said that set everyone off was that the quality was lacking in the Linux distros and that what was made them worth less then the asking price, what he should have said is that the prices are ridiculous for both commerical Linux and Windows because both are in fact priced outrageously. The price points set by Microsoft have made their OS one of the most pirated peices of software on the planet and even with their size and influence they know that there is no way to ever experience complete success against piracy of their product. We do not want the commerical Linuxs to experience the same problem or else it will slow their development because the do not have the resources of a Microsoft or an Adobe to live off of. Commerical Linux needs to lower its prices and start selling itself as what it really is, a MS alternative that may take a bit more effort to get off and running but will pay dividends down the road.
Please do not let scientific accuracy interfere with the intended humourous/interesting/insightful value of this comment
His recommendation that vendors lower prices is taking htings much too simply. As a person whose job it is to sell Linux to non-Linux shops, I can tell you there are two conversations here: 1)Linux on the server - here it is already price advantaged as most Linux deployments in server rooms are replacements for mainframe/solaris/sco enviroments and WAY cheaper than those solutions 2)Linux on the desktop - here the price issue of the distry is a secondary concern. Customers worry first about retraining, security, disruption of business due to change, application compatibility, vendor support, price of the productivity suite (Office/Openoffice) then the price of the OS.
"Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
Since Windows is the dominant desktop OS by a significant margin, it is the only OS for which you expect all hardware to work. (This expectation will be violated from time to time, of course, and we all have anecdotes to show it). That much is pretty damned obvious.
The original article was annoying because he "didn't want to make this an issue about tech support", but it is just that. Not everything works straight off. Some people need to be told to turn the volume on. This can take a while for a tech support person to suggest.
Grrrr. This is just more of the same: mentioning a specific case, then arguing to the general. He is annoyed that people look at his particular problem and try to solve it for him! But his general point is either completely unjustified, or so painfully obvious that we don't need to be told (since he provides no evidence or argument to support anything more).
Stop posting this stuff!
Posters recognized by their sig,
Exactly. Every time someone brings up an experience they had of not being able to get some stupid piece of hardware working in linux that they easily could in windows the typical response around here is "well I got it to work so you must be dumb!" I would have switched a while ago however my printer doesn't work and in school I needed to use a specific software title only available for windows and I didn't feel like switching back every time homework was due or I needed to print something.
But I'm not complaining, linux is free and so I have no right to complain as I didn't pay a dime for it. It's just that whenever someone says linux should be on everyone's family living room computer there are a lot of things in the way. People getting offended and the mods posting trolls and people getting +5 insightfuls make this whole free software movement seem really childish. It's sad because I'm sure the people who develop linux, gnome, kde, mozilla, ect. are not here bitching about windows all day long but are actually doing something. I'd do something myself, but I'm still just learning software and I don't have the skills to write a driver for the printer or port PSpice over to linux.
I'm really impressed with KDE3.2 and it's amazing how fast it's updated that is very much beyond Microsoft. There is definatly a window of several years here until longhorn debuts and I think that linux could very well make its way into more people's houses. I just wish something just like apt-get existed for the rpm world that made it just as easy to update. However, I've read of projects in the works just for that so I'm sure "rpm hell" will be over a lot sooner than "dll hell" lasted.
From the article:
"There were a few more posts in the "Fred is lying/hiding" vein, but most of those died out when the participants in the discussion saw that the sound system indeed should have worked."
How can they see that it "should have worked" when Fred still won't Name That Hardware?
Once Fred is willing to Name That Hardware, then everyone can progress to the next round!
Is it a BUG in Linux
-or-
Is it a BUG in the hardware
-or-
Is it a CONFIGURATION/USER ERROR
But Fred sez:
"The omission was simple: I had seen no need to burn space in the original article with a list of the hardware specs because the vendor I was dealing with specifically said the system should work with their distribution (I had provided the support techs with a complete hardware rundown); and the sound chipset in question is listed on the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) site as supported."
It would take Fred less space to Name That Hardware than it took to write that paragraph.
Example:
IBM Thinkpad T40
(16 characters plus carriage return)
-vs-
Fred's reasoning why he shouldn't have to to identify it...
(approximately 400 characters)
What was that about not wanting to "burn space"?
Hmmmm.......?
Langa's criticism sounds fair to me. I've been there, done that so many times. Official spec sheet says product X supports product Y. You have product Y. You buy product X. Product Y doesn't work with it. You complain. Then you hear variations on the following theme
*Very few of our customers are using product Y.
*Personally, I would never have recommended product Y.
*Why are you using product Y? Product Z is so much better.
*You don't really need to have product Y work with product X.
*By "support," all we meant is basic functionality. It does allow product Y to frangulate over the standard three-gnorgl raniseft. I know that the main selling point of product Y is that it can frangulate over eight gnorgls more than standard products, but we only support the basic functionality.
*Anyone knowledgeable could have told you that X's support for Y sucks. It was your dumb fault for believing the spec sheet.
*We've found that most of our customers LIKE having Product Y hang, freeze, and emit smoke.
*Oh, we're sorry about that, but it was marketing that put that on the spec sheet, not engineering.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
You're falling prey to the same error as the article writer - viewing Linux as a single operating system.
Commercial distributions are intended to be polished, consumer-oriented OS's. The writer is correct that they aren't there yet. However, Mandarake, SuSE, Red Hat, etc., are not "Linux." They're a Linux, or a Linux based OS, but not Linux.
Debian, for one example, is still around and still focused on security and reliability rather than consumer use. Gentoo is another. Linux will not lose its focus. Various distributions will have their own focus, but the focus of that distribution does not affect the focus of "Linux" over all.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Linux distribution vendors only have the right to charge equivalent costs to Windows if and when their distribution is equivalent or better than Windows in all respects, out of the box. This has yet to happen for the desktop market (which appears to be what he's referring to in the article).
In the server space, Linux is definitely "there". Just look at what you can do on some of the new blade servers that HP, SGI, IBM are selling.
However, even the most rabid Linux advocate will agree that you can't typically get a Linux desktop-focused distribution to work across the board, out of the box. Efforts are definitely being made, with most of the commercial vendors producing better-integrated desktop offerings that tie together the various open source projects (evolution, openoffice, mozilla, kde) into something cohesive and easy to use. Problems however, still exist. Partly due to lag-time between getting drivers for cutting-edge hardware, and secondly, because work still remains to be done in the whole "integration of the desktop".
As I read in a fellow slashdotters post a while back, "Linux will be ready for the desktop when users don't need to understand mount(8) parameters" (paraphrased).
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
First, I think it would only be fair to point out that the cost of Linux should be compared to the cost of the server version of Windows. XP Home, and even XP Professional, are much more limited than your typical distribution of Linux.
Second, if you're taking the Linux plunge, it's generally trivial to test drive a free (as in beer) distribution of Linux before making the dive into a commercial distribution of Linux that comes with support contracts and other goodies.
Third, the fact that Linux lags behind when it comes to drivers can hardly be blamed on Linux. Hardware manufacturers (whether rightly or wrongly) tend to put a low priority on writing Linux drivers, if they write them at all.
Honestly, I blame this in part on the GNU Public License, since it's somewhat business unfriendly. This is just my honest opinion, please don't flame me for it.
-Teckla
The big difference is that no matter how outwardly "dumb" the system is, you still have access to the internals via the CLI and .conf files.
In the Windows world the user, (or better the admin who is trying to save/fix a broken system) is locked out of that part of the OS
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
Zealots aside, I agree with this article and the former article. It's been a frequent issue for me when installing many different Linux distributions that:
1. It's not a surprise if my network card works.
2. It's a mild surprise if my sound card works.
3. (up until recently) It'd amaze me if my graphics card worked to its full potential.
Net, sound and graphics are the most important peripherals that should work flawlessly. Sound and graphics especially, as they're the sensory output of your computer, without them you don't know what's going on.
Linux does not have the same quality of driver database as Microsoft's OSes do. This is merely because Microsoft is dominant. Perhaps a sweet way to handle the problem would be to create some kind of abstraction layer that allowed you to use vendor-supplied Windows drivers under Linux, but that is extremely unrealistic, and it'd be slow and bloated (someone will now pipe up and tell me that it is being worked on).
Linux has been given a boost by the recent dominance of particular audio chips from Creative (such as the EMU10K1) and graphics chipsets from ATI and nVidia.
Sadly, Linux drivers are provided mainly by people who have some hardware that doesn't work under Linux. So they start a driver for it, get far enough for the driver to work well enough for their needs, and then leave it to deteriorate over time without any attention paid to it, as they change hardware. End users then get some kind of beta thing that hasnt been worked on for 3 years but still have to use it. This is the hardware manufacturers fault -- Linux devrs dont have the money to buy and reverse-engineer every piece of hardware. They need the specs, and ultimately they need the vendor to make a Linux driver by proxy, as vendors do for Windows.
Currently though, you don't look bad for not making a Linux driver. People don't open the box and say "wtf is this? No linux driver?!", because they morbidly expect Linux support to be limited. In the domain of onboard sound or graphics, or newer hardware, Linux support is the exception rather than the rule. Vendors need some good reason to add Linux support, and it's not up to me to decide what that reason would be. "Thanks" is not good enough.
I should also mention that even if most home Linux users do obtain a driver for some hardware, they'd be at pains to find out how to install/compile the damn thing, especially if it involves recompiling the kernel.
I'm not flaming Linux, I don't need a crock of shit from the zealot crowd telling me I'm an idiot faggot and so on, I'm just being realistic and saying there is work to be done.
What I'd like to see in the future is a Universal Driver Abstraction Layer, some kind of compile-once-run-many virtual machine that allows the same drivers to work on any OS that supports it, the only problem is that OSes make very different demands of the drivers so this may never come into fruition.
A great example is one of my early posts about how I didn't trust Linux filesystems, and that I'd lost files on numerous occasions due to power failures on ext2 systems. I went back and looked through my whole archive, but apparently this thread was before the cutoff date for archiving... lost to history.
Roughly summarizing, I posted that I didn't trust Linux in a production environment because ext2 was unreliable: you couldn't trust it in a power failure. I didn't get EVEN ONE useful response. What I got, instead, were a mix of (approximately):
1) "Well, gee, I've lost power 14,232 times and I've never lost a file"; (ie, problem doesn't exist)
2) "You should always have backups"; (problem is unimportant)
3) "You're an idiot, you should have copied a backup superblock. Moron. Go play with Windows." (problem is stupid user)
4) "I lost power to my NT machine and I lost 23,124 files!' (NT is worse so it's okay for Linux to suck.)
It was really interesting to see how different the posts were when I mentioned that a couple of years later. I can't find that post now, but by that time, Linux had journaled filesystems. We had a fairly interesting commentary back and forth about how NT 4.0 didn't really have journaling, and that it wasn't until 2K that NTFS was truly robust. But everyone agreed that journaling was good, now that Linux had it. Pretty significant shift in stance, eh?
I've seen this so many times that I'm forced to conclude it's some kind of defense mechanism.... if you really love your pet project, and it has shortcomings, gloss over them or dismiss them as unimportant. I think we would be wise to be more aware of this, and that users in general don't request things for no reason at all. They may just need education. It may be simple ignorance on how to approach the problem in Linux.
Chewing them out, on the other hand, for not manually repairing their filesystems by copying a backup superblock, well.... that's stupider than their not knowing how.
It seems to me as if Fred wrote the article knowing that he'd provoke the Linux community.
He seems amazed that people could react in this way:
Many readers thought I was trying to hide something; or was secretly trying to stack the deck against Linux; or that I had some other evil motivation in not detailing the hardware.
some readers from the Linux community are deeply suspicious of criticism of Linux.
I find it hard to believe that an experienced writer such as Fred Langa would express disbelief at the reaction he received.
Look at all of the FUD that's spread about Linux, the lies, the half-truths, the selective analysis, the ignorant writers expressing their opinions based on hear-say. Surely Fred is aware of the mass of tripe written about Linux, how can he not understand why the Linux community is suspicious?
And if he knew of this, why didn't he provide more details? Surely he should have anticipated the questions that would be asked?
Maybe Fred acts the way he does for one of the following reasons:
1) Fred is biased against Linux/Open Source and wants to make the Linux community look bad.
2) Fred loves to cause discord in general.
3) Fred isn't very perceptive or just doesn't think.
4) Fred is pro-Linux and attempts to make a big deal of certain issues in the hope that they'll be resolved faster.
I don't know, I don't care. But to act amazed at the reaction he got seems like a sham, it would appear that it's just what Fred wanted, especially as he wrote up a whole new article focused on the angry, suspicious, Linux community that won't have anything negative said about their OS!
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Agree or disagree with the author, there is one thing he shows quite clearly: Many Linux users would rather attack than help.
... they are too busy leading real lives, be they on-line or in meat-space).
... and I'm a fan of Apple who owns one of their high-end laptops).
I disagree (rather strongly) with your use of the word "most." It isn't "most" users, it is the "loudest" users. There is an important difference.
Any crowd has its bullies, and the RTMFYDMF ("read the fucking articile you dumb mother-fucker") crowd rears its ugly head in almost every community of sufficient size (I've seen variations on that in the MSFT support groups, the FreeBSD groups, and plenty of others).
Unfortunately, while the RMTFYDMF crowd is a tiny minority, it tends to be the loudest subgroup by far, while other, helpful, normal people tend to be quieter (as they are not looking for the first opportunity to put someone down
Most Linux users and enthusiasts can take criticism reasonably well, just as most OS X enthusiasts, *BSD enthusiasts, Blender enthusiasts, etc. can. Those who cannot unfortunately scream the loudest and get the most attention, emberrassing the rest of us (I have been moderated into oblivion and flamed to hell for posting rather mild criticism of Apple on this site a time or two
I disagree with several of the points in the original article (and agree with others), but I shudder to think of the rude flames the guy probably received from the RTFMYDMF crowd.
It isn't helpful, nor is it an accurate representation of our community. It is, however, the most often seen (or heard) group because of its loud obnoxiousness, and there are certain parties that no doubt would be perfectly happy to enhance that loudness to the detriment of us all (and to their PR advantage).
While I disagree with the current article's posits (commercial Linux distros remain significantly less expensive than their commercial equivelents, particularly Microsofts) and believe it based on too few data points (RedHat is the glaring exception to the above), the author does seem to have tempered his response to what must have been some aggrivating flamage from the more boistrous, and generally more anti-social, parts of the peanut gallary.
Hopefully more reasoned and enlightened disagreement (where appropriate) will prevail in response to this article, instead of some of the knee-jerk flamage that so often gets shouted from the rooftops by an undiplomatic few.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Fred Langa is "right on" when comparing Microsoft OS offering against the attempted commercialized Linux offerings. From the perspective of a consumer.
He had the expectation that "all would work", and be "supported" (um... work) at least as well as Windows; given the the price was comparable.
From another perspective, that's wrong. If it doesn't work, get your money back -- that's what he paid for. But, Linux is a hobby system. If (or when) it works for Mr. Langa, he will know it, and use it.
What ticks me off is that Mr. Langa is being critical of Linux! You know, that hobby project. Get pissed at Suse, Redhat, Mandrake, (___ fill in the blank). Leave the hobbyist alone! Linux, Debian, et al. I am sure that Mr. Langa (as most of us) hs two standards -- one for professional atheletes, and another for amateur (Olympians, etc.). Yes, the professional bar is higher, as it should be.
If the F/OSS stuff is good enough, it will be used. Sure, criticize, but also give that community positive feedback. We aren't in it for money -- so some positive feedback would be useful.
The vilest thing that has happened to me in the Free Software world was a program I wrote (EMUL87). Distributed on SIMTEL; thousands of users. Not a word of positive feedback. Until one day (actually, 5 years later), when one consultant mailed me, and DEMAANDED I fix the software (because his client needed it). And if I didn't fix it IMMEDIATELY, I would be SUED. I told him to 'f off.
That nearly ended my relationship with F/OSS. But, I changed my mind. I like sharing, you see, and I get stuff from the community.
So, I feel that the F/OSS community is maligned and demotivated by the constant comparision with commercial software. The journalistic tack should be to take the commercial vendors to task if their offerings are so weak that F/OSS is actually competitive.
I understand why some people got defensive. Mr. Langa should CLEARLY state that the comparision is *not* with Linux or F/OSS, but with particular distributions or support organizations.
Enough of a rant.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
As a steady Linux user for the past 4 years, I feel Langa's response to the onslaught of reactions is even-handed and, well, fitting.
I feel embarrassed for the Linux community when I see people making such asinine remarks (/accusations/insults). In fact, I was *thankful* that someone asked him to 'write his own driver', just so that we could all see just how narrow-minded we can all be.
Supporting Linux means being fair first, and not simply being sycophants. Langa's points are somewhat salient, and they need to be addressed. Not derided out-of-hand.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
This is Linux FUD week it seems
How are the Information Week articles FUD*? They looked to me to be well-documented and logical. Plus, he could have flamed the idiots that flamed him in...and didn't. He actually gave them a respect they didn't deserve.
*by the MS definition, of course.
XP Home comes with an industry standard web server? XP Home can operate as a full-fledged file server? With unlimited client-licensed connections? XP Home provides a secure, virus-free work environment for the corporate desktop? XP Home comes with a fully functional word processor and spreadsheet? XP Home comes with a complete compiler and development environment?
Seems to me that XP Home is a bit overpriced.
All it can do out of the box is play music, watch DVD's, connect to the internet, and download malware while you're trying to get real work done. No, thank you, but I'll pass.
-Hope
Okay, let me see...
If I have an IT company that needs to provide services to, say, 100 customers a second. Say, a big database or such. I can pick Windows servers for moderate price. They will crash under the load about once a day. Because of being unreliable my company goes bankrupt.
Now if I use "overpriced" Linux services, I keep my company running smoothly. It brings profit, it exists. Uptime nearly 100%, with downtimes for upgrades etc announced a month ahead.
I pay what it's worth.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I don't think the criticism about pricing is valid, because when one buys a distro, especially on a server, one isn't buying it because it could run on all the hardware in the world you might toss at it -- generally people make some effort to make sure that they're using compatible hardware (and, on the server, often that they're using 'industrial-grade' stuff). Further, as Unices have several areas where things are better than Windows, it really is a crapshoot as to which is a better value (or, more accurately, it depends on what specific features you/your IT folk want). On the other hand, he does post some letters he recieved that are quite likely knee-jerk responses, especially the person who suggests that people who like playing mp3s shouldn't use Linux.
Further, it is a point that, depending on the hardware available, Linux might not work, or not work well on some systems. My present laptop, for example, has built-in wireless that was dead to me until the driverloader compatibility layer was written, and so I was using a PCMCIA wireless card until then. Still, for me using windows wasn't an option -- I'm just not comfortable on non-Unix systems because, so long as hardware support is acceptable, the other advantages far outweigh graphics/sound/whatever not being as fast/capable.
Even now, I could download vendor drivers for some of my hardware (Dell Inspiron 8500), and maybe get a few extra features or a bit more speed, but I just don't care enough.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
The users. I'm a regular linux evangelist, but when i see feedback like this guy got from us - accusing him of lying, being an idiot, working clandestinely for Microsoft, SCO or the Christian Right... I just feel ashamed and want to distance myself from the whole thing. These knee-jerk reactionaries, zealots and narrow-minded elitists make us all look like fools and tarnish the image of Linux far more than some guy who can't get his soundcard to work. It has to stop.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
Silly AC. That particular troll has been copied & pasted into several Linux stories, word for word. He is modded down because he provides nothing but Microsoft's own marketing materials and presents them as "established facts". Clue: Slashdot is not meant to be a Microsoft fansite. There are other sites for that.
If Linux wants to supplant Windows, then you have to cater to the target audiences that comprise the Windows world. Linux can easily target the system admin crowd, as system admins are technically savy enough to deal with its nuances and actually will appreciate its complex beauty.
Linux cannot, today, target the home user or even small business category _effectively_. This is because this market segment demands different (more simplistic) criteria (the pointy-clicky crowd).
So the trick therefore is to retain the technical prowess while providing for the pointy-clicky types. The system admins should be able to command-line to thier hearts content, but the average users should be able to install, use, and upgrade Linux software AND hardware without being attacked by the command line demons. When we have achieved that nirvana then Linux will conquer all.
Until then, its a hobby OS for anyone other than the hardcore non-nOObs.
That said, I am looking forward to the day when I can be Linux only, but for now its to much hastle for the benefit.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
You have an interesting definition of FUD, it would seem.
He bought a Linux distribution for as much money as Windows would have cost. He installed it on his PC. It didn't work as advertised.
He then wrote an article about this, in which he explained what didn't work. Linux activists told him he was lying, hiding facts, actively working against Linux, that he was an idiot, a technical moron, that it was his fault, and that the part that didn't work wasn't actually needed.
Those responses were written by people with very strange ideas of how to build a wide acceptance and support for Linux. They seem to have the idea that any and all forms of criticism is written by people actively against Linux, people who should be taunted, haunted and ridiculed, and their articles hidden, removed or just written of as FUD.
This is inexplicably stupid, and actively working against wide Linux acceptance. Nobody in their right mind switch to a product that is promoted by people who cannot take criticism, people who do not listen to facts, who cannot accept an opinion contrary to their own without ridiculing the other person, people who, for whatever reason, are so paranoid that they think that there could "Never, Ever, Be Anything Wrong With Linux, and therefore anybody who says so is after us".
He bought a product. It didn't work as advertised. It could not be fixed by the support. He has every right to complain, tell everyone what happened, and not be ridiculed, called an idiot, or accused of spreading FUD for doing so.
Calling his article FUD is clueless, and actively working against wide Linux acceptance.
But I guess I am now the person, most likely paid by Microsoft, who should be haunted and taunted for pointing out something as ridiculous (sp?) as that Linux could, in fact, have areas where work needs to be done, and that anybody who has paid for a distribution has every right to write an article about it. Without clueless activists calling him an idiot.
I want to be a part of the Free Software world. I do not, however, want to be a part of a narrowminded world where you cannot under any circumstance listen to criticism, where customers must be experts and are otherwise called "idiots", and where anything negative written or said is a sure sign of mental disabilities or a covert Microsoft operation.
If that is the world of Linux, then I will never tell anyone I love it.
Bah, frankly I'm tired of people modding things like this "Insightful".
Are you completely ignorant to reality? The Internet is like the real world: there are bad places, but there are also good places! If you get flamed down at an IRC channel, big deal. Move on to a good channel where people are willing to help you.
Saying that everybody in the Linux community tells you RTFM just because someone from a certain channel said that is like saying every human is a thief because a certain human is a thief. It's a completely wrong generalization.
An excellent Linux support forum would be the ComputerTotaal Forum (Dutch). People have been very helpful to me ever since 1999. People will Linux software and hardware problems are never flamed down.
Just take a look at the GNOME and KDE mailing lists. Do you see RTFM anywhere? I don't.
Take a look at the GNOME support forums. Where do you see newbies getting flamed down?
In other words:
Stop spreading the RTFM-myth!
ist he fact commercial distros will overshow the real distros that think of opensource and the user before money. They'll sell their product in stores, but will provide it free of charge also.
:P
Sadly the way the US economy is, the commercial ones will be the representatives to linux to joe average and mr. common businessman
and they're not necessarily the best, they offer some good features, but are too narrow in what they provide, much like microsoft.
MEPIS and Mandrake 10.0 are the best for users IMHO, and if a company has some good techs on hand who want to get down and dirty to make some good low-end servers, use debian, and of course, give a nice donation
I don't really get anything of value out of this follow-up article from Langa. Essentially, it's a compilation of the responses that we saw in the forums. Langa, in the forums, did nothing more than *insult* other posters and attempt (but failed) to do an adequate job of backing up his claims.
It has been mentioned that Langa's sound problems were related to the fact that he was *emulating* a sound device through Virtual PC. I suspect that it was the primary reason for his problems. He did indicate that sound worked at one point in time, through some means, but eventually failed again. It's hard to tell the exact reasons. I could argue all day that there are a number of peices of hardware that work very nicely on Linux but work like shit on WindowsXP (e.g. Aureal Vortex chips, which are still showing up in new soundcards to this very day). I could argue that my UMAX scanner works perfectly on Linux, but requires a paid driver update from UMAX to get it to function on Windows XP. These are points that totally negate his reasoning for feeling that "Linux is not ready".
Fred seems to be surprised that Linux users get defensive over some types of criticism. Is it really all that surprising? We see all sorts of criticisim from "unbiased" sources almost daily, through "reasearch" that is funded by groups like the recent Alexis de Tocqueville Institution articles. Much of it is without warrant. It's another attempt to steer people away from Linux, so it's hard to tell who is right and who is just cashing in. Regardless, people work hard to make Linux an excellent OS, often without compensation. Criticism isn't a bad thing, but is it not only fair that a critic has his facts in order before hand?
Langa makes an interesting point regarding the cost of Linux software from commercial vendors. I feel that he is missing some important things though. First, desktop Linux software often *does not* cost anything near the cost of Microsoft Windows. He touted Xandros during his initial review, indicating that he had paid for a copy. Xandros standard edition costs a mere $39, and that includes installation tech support. How much more should they lower the prices?
Why is it that guys like Langa associate less value with Linux and the included programs, thus indicating that the price should be lower? Is Linux considered less of a value to him, simply because his software emulated sound device will not work through Virtual PC? I fail to see what Langa is trying to indicate.
Companies like RedHat and Novell are pricing their corporate Linux products because they offer 24x5 technical support for them, at no additional cost, for their Advanced Server and desktop products. High priority 24x7 support is available at an additional cost. They have relatively good response times, and they are covered for a full year over the web (and a shorter time over the phone). This is what you pay for when you buy a Linux distribution. There is a limitation of two incidents with Windows XP home edition before you are subject to the $35 fee for technical support. Windows 2003 Server support is available for a minimum of $99, over email, and phone support is $245.
See a connection here? If you want support, then you have to pay for it. Otherwise, there are plenty of no-cost Linux solutions for home and corporate users alike. I personally can see more value in giving a donation to Pat Volkerding (of Slackware) than to pay for the latest Microsoft OS. With most commercial Linux distributions, you get a stable and powerful OS, updates for the life of the current version (this even includes updates for most of the included applications), and you don't have to dump tons of money into extra software like antivirus/firewall/adware/spyware tools and the support to implement and operate them. How can one NOT see this as a value in its own right?
I see Windows as a value that is geared mostly to the following people; musicians and artists, PC game enthusiasts, and office dorks that need
A couple of issues he is totally failing to address.
1. When you install windows it is capable of doing absolutely nothing. Yea you might be able to open a text file with notepad but that is as far as it goes. Now compare the cost of a commercial linux distro with it's software CAPABILITY to that of a comparable windows with the software loaded to match it. By the time you are able to match the functionality of the linux box you will have spent nearly 100,000 dollars on software licensing alone. The only functionality in a freshly loaded windows box is the capability of spreading worms.
2. As for hardware compatibility he is addressing the enterprise crowd but is talking about desktop hardware. Trust me when I buy my servers preloaded from HP they just plain work with every piece of hardware in that box. In the enterprise we do not have somebodys 20$ cheapo mexican built scanner hooked to our desktop server. We are talking high end fiber channel, san, huge memory etc.
I will take Windows seriously when it can run on
Power PC arcitecture. You see that statement really turns the tables around now doesn't it. I would say that windows has poor hardware support becuase it cannot run on PPC.
Got Code?
If the Linux vendor told Langa everything would work with his hardware and it didn't, then either the vendor was wrong or lied.
If a download some free ISO's, then I expect to get what I paid for. But if I choose to spend, say, $89 for a Linux distro instead of Windows, I also expect to get what I paid for. That includes having every piece of hardware, every peripheral, detected and properly configured during the installation. I want the printer to work: I want the scanner to work; I want the sound card to work (and don't mute the thing; that's lame: I found your sound card, and now I'll turn it off); etc., etc.
People do not buy computers and operating systems so they can waste time getting the damn things to work right.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Cost Of Ownership is the real cost of an OS, not the initial purchase price.
Spending an extra couple of hours trying to get Linux to work as well as it should, for working people, instantly makes Linux more expensive than XP, when it comes to desktops.Have you maybe forgotten all the hours it takes to patch MS OSes against the various worms that spring up, every couple of months or so ?
As a 100% exclusive Linux user, the only time I spend on them is when I read about them on Slashdot ...
I don't want to get into a big debate about Linux vs Windows (I've made my mind up, I suspect you have also), however I don't think you can just ignore the security issues that MS OSes have when making statements about the price comparisons of Linux vs MS OSes.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Is this true? If so ... why?
Why on earth does the system once it's worked out, configured and primed your soundcard feel the need to gag it before it's even had the chance to make one note of noise?
Why would you want something that makes people immediately think that the installation and configuration process of their soundcard is broken because their OS claims it works, but they can't hear a damn thing even with the volume on max? Yet it works just fine under Windows.
Sure, "all you need to do it un-mute the volume", but if the solution is so simple, why couldn't the system do it for you in the first place?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
No, he did not. Given that his primary argument this time out is that linux distros should lower their prices, this significant.
The initial article states that "Distro "XYZ" even costs roughly as much as a Windows XP upgrade". That's right, the linux full version cost as much as a Windows upgrade. Further, unless he paid much more than I've seen any linux distro retail for, he is talking about an upgrade to XP Home edition. Now compare what each product is likely to come with, out of the box, in terms of productivity software, games, etc. Which one gave the customer more for their money, and why is the argument that they cost the same misleading?
The products failure to work correctly is an issue. However, when the linux distro is already priced lower than an equivalent Windows license (or, more likely, set of licenses), then how exactly does lowering the price resolve anything?
The article's basic premise this time out is that linux is overpriced compared to Windows. This makes it FUD.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
In my not-so-humble opinion, it's the Linux community that looks bad, not Fred Langa. The virulent, dogmatic reponses look childish, especially when they sound like the folks who preach the virtues of tin-foil hats. There are real conspiracies in the universe -- being unable to get sound working with Linux is not one of them. ;)
I've been running Linux for a long time, and it's certainly come a long way; seven of nine processors (trekkie pun not intended!) in my office run Linux full-time. And it can be a pain-in-the-rump to install; I've had at least one major hardware problem with every install. Now, once Linux is installed, it offers me many facilities unavailable under Windows -- but then, I'm a developer and engineer, and what I need is quite different than what an office worker or home computist wants.
It's too bad that certain religious fanatics insist upon screaming at heretics and unbelievers when their energies could do so much more for making Linux better.
All about me
I think it's telling that half the items you list as remedies include downloading third-party software.
And nearly all of the functionality that Linux has depends on third party software that just so happens to come on a couple CDs, instead of being downloaded. I fail to see the big deal with getting a CD or two that has a bunch of free apps that anyone could download, because you're going to make that corporate disk image first, and spending a few minutes downloading and installing the software on a Windows machine is not a big deal really. But hey, you guys like CDs so much, maybe the sysadmin could just hand everyone a Windows CD and two or three extra CDs with all the third party software they need. Same net effect as what you're getting with Linux distros.
Also, your comment about Linux being insufficient on the corporate desktop is off-base.
I didn't say that. If you examine what was said:
XP Home provides a secure, virus-free work environment for the corporate desktop?
Linux doesn't provide you with one either, so this isn't really a good point for you to be making.
The poster claimed that Linux proves a virus-free network. Until the day that there are no viruses and exploits for the particular Linux distribution in question, this is not an accurate statement.
Bearing all that in mind (since you can't be bothered to actually read the article, apparently), wtf are you talking about?
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
I won't deny that for many, Linux has been a good, useful, and reliable OS. But each time I have tried it, I have come away disappointed, for a number of reasons. My most recent experiences with SuSE and with Mandrake were not bad, but not great. Neither of them was able to handle my mainstream AGP card in the mode I prefer, and neither even showed that such a mode existed.
While I have been comfortably using Windows as my primary tool since the days of NT4, I have also been looking for alternatives. BeOS came closest to being something I would have switched to.
At any event, I am not in the pay of MS, and although my work depends on their OSes, I do keep hoping for a viable alternative.
As close as Linux is getting to viability in some respects, the desktop continues to disappoint. Or more accurately, the quality of many of the alternative apps on the Linux desktop disappoints. And like it or not, folks, the desktop is at the core of acceptance for anything beyond server farms.
Another of the areas of weakness for Linux has long been the documentation (or lack thereof.) In recent months, the situation has improved somewhat, as the LDP seems to have been fueled with some new energy. Still, to me an OS is merely a tool, and not a religion or a cause. I expect and require competent documentation.
Finally, as a developer for whom gcc is not the tool of choice, the various distributions appear to be a minefield of irregularity that makes DLL Hell look good. Although in the main, my interest is for turnkey systems where I can select a distro and stay with it, thereby reducing the problem substantially, I am yet mindful of the reality that the libraries shipped with any given distro tie me somewhat to that distro, or commit me to an expenditure of time that I wish to avoid in changing libraries.
Linux has many attractive features; it's least attractive feature, however, is the anarchical nature of its support.
--- Bill
- "Linux" is not a product companies buy; it's a technology that other vendors use to build solutions (e.g. Red Hat).
- When companies talk about using open source, they're really using a commercially-packaged solution offered by one of these vendors. Very few, if any, Fortune 500 companies deploy Linux or other open source software through the "completely free" (as in beer) route.
- So when you talk about Linux vs. Windows, you now have a real baseline to compare total costs and "value" obtained from each.
Microsoft's argument (and this is straight from the mouth of Bob Muglia, MS's VP in charge of Windows Server) is that when you break it down in this way, you start to find that the Linux/OSS solution really doesn't cost significantly less than a Windows solution.Right? Wrong? It's hard for me to say, personally. Companies like Red Hat definitely seem to be cooking up high-price-tag subscription schemes that are comparable to what you could get any other OS for.
Similarly, Sun's argument these days is that it will sell you Linux (licensed from SuSE or Red Hat, or bundled with the Java Desktop) but if you ask them, Solaris is the better deal. They claim that Solaris is the result of years of more sophisticated engineering, with more enterprise-class features, and can be had for significantly lower TCO than Linux. Seriously. They say Solaris is cheaper, in the long run, and that's not a 20-years type long run, either.
Sure, it could all be FUD, but the D in that acronym is definitely present already. Red Hat hasn't yet figured out what the market will support in terms of Linux support licensing. I bet they could charge less than Microsoft does, but so far lower cost doesn't really seem to be the strongest link in its value proposition.
Breakfast served all day!
My other comment ("By the way") somehow got attached to the wrong post... look up and over one.
With respect to what you paid for...
* an operating system that is no easier to use than any of the competing operating systems including OSX and any recently released Linux distribution.
* an operating system that has gaping holes in its hardware compatibility for any device older than a few years.
* an operating system that, despite its "unparalleled commercial software support," still cannot provide a consistent software installation and removal method, avoid rebooting the machine for every other install, prevent applications from writing to the system directory, and not require all users to run as administrator to operate properly.
* it does run a lot of programs though. I'll give you that.
With respect to what we paid for...
* flawless operation on the hardware we use, which includes all major brands and standards. We do not get the same level of compatibility with Windows.
* the ability to continuously download feature and security updates to every package installed on our network automatically and remotely in piece-wise fashion without requiring a company-wide regression test. We still do not have that with our remaining Windows computers. One simply does not install a service pack company-wide without a lot of testing. It's never been an issue with Linux.
* the knowledge that if in two years we decide to change vendors based on price, performance, or value, that we have the freedom to do so as there will be no vendor lock-in.
* the ability to run the same operating system throughout the company, on our desktops, on our servers, on any hardware from Intel to PowerPC to big iron.
* the list goes on...
That's about all the time I got... there's a Windows machine on fire at one of our Chicago clients that I have to look into. It's been fun.
-Hope
The original author of the magazine article and -- surprisingly -- all the comments I've seen to date appear to be unaware of the reason for this.
The soundcard manufacturers make sound cards to work under Windows. They cooperate with Microsoft to have drivers written, and their contract precludes (and, I am told, in some cases explicitly forbids) the writing of drivers for Linux, and the publication of driver details to those who would otherwise do the job (ie us, the dev community).
It took Alan Cox all of 25 seconds to explain this to me in the pub a few years ago (unless I have misunderstood it all). Why does no-one else seem to be aware of it?
Let me put it more bluntly: the hardware manufacturers don't give a tinker's shit about Linux, which has 1% of the market. They do give very many tinkers' shits about Windows, which has 90-whatever % of the market (they seem to be lukewarm about Apple). It's not about linux "failing" to support these cards -- it's about Linux simply not being important enough (yet) to warrant their attention.
I agree with Fred Langa that Linux does not support as much hardware as Windows does. But I don't think just lowering the price of Linux is the solution to that problem.
True, some distros of Linux are rediculously priced (like SuSe won't even ship with Apache unless you order the enterprisey version!) but others aren't. And many distros, if you don't want to shell out the money for a boxed copy, you're allowed (and in some cases even encouraged) to download.
As for the fact that going with Linux restricts your choices as far as hardware is concerned, leaving you with a more limited hardware-compatibility list; this too wouldn't bother me if only one thing were different: if only it were easier and more straightforward to find the stuff that is on this more limited hardware-compatibility list.
Finding hardware to put together a Linux system can be a very daunting task for many would-be Linux users: and not just because there are fewer things supported. If you go into a store looking for, in this example, a DVD rom for your computer: if you're running a version of either Windows or MacOS, you can look at the box of each piece of hardware, and it will usually tell you if it supports your system. No such luck with Linux. Only once do I recall ever having seen something with a "Works with Linux" sticker on it: and I don't remember for sure what it was, but it sadly was a device that was meant for doing something that I had no use for at the time.
Let's start with what I will call "Step 1". To find stuff that works with Linux you have to deal with complex Hardware Compatibility Lists. And you will want probably be able to access it while you're in the store. This will require you to either (a) massacre some trees to print out several pages worth of informatioin or (b) access the online copy *somehow* while you're in the store. My CompactFlash memory drive (the only piece of at-the-time Linux compatible hardware I was ever able to find without my dad's help or someone else's) I found because the clerk was able to allow me to use option -b-. Usually, however, unless you're willing to be ruthless to our green-leaved neighbors, you are already out of luck.
Now to Step 2. Once you're in the store with a means of figuring out what will and will not work with Linux, you have to hope that something on the list is still on the shelves. (You can't guarantee the quality of something you get used - and if you're planning to try to order it new online that can be a whole can-of-worms to some people too - and yes, people whom Linux will have to accomodate in order to gain wide acceptance.)
Doing this may be possible if you are running the latest version of Linux - which you may have perfectly legitimate reasons not to want to be constrained by such a requirement. For example, I use RedHat Linux 7.3 because I don't know how to fix all those dysfunctional things in Red Hat Linux 9. (I know there is a way to do it - but I don't know how.)
Of course, in theory, I could download and install the drivers necessary that came out since 7.3, and thereby increas my hardware selection to what's supported by RH 9.0, and beyond even that. But in reality, that option is only availabe to kernel-experts.
Now, I'm no fool or computer newbie. I'm a heck of a good computer programmer, if I do say so myself. And if finding Linux hardware is above my head at times, then it is probably beyond the look-up-in-the-sky range for the typical user that you'd have to appeal to to get widespread Linux acceptance.
As for Step 1: I think a database could be put together which contains several bits of information on each piece of hardware, including what major distros the piece of hardware works with, how hard is it to work with the hardware (I mean: is it supported out of the box or do you have do download and install driver?) and channels of availability (What stores is it available in? And if a store has an online version
Yes, people expect things to work when they PAY for something. To charge the same price for Linux as Windows then not provide at least as good of support(install in this case) is just bad business. The idea that sound and other components are not necessary might have been a valid argument in the late 90's but now, now way! This becomes even more important at the desktop level. The 'average user': mom, dad, even gamers, don't necessarily want to learn everything that Sys Admins. know in order to use their machine. For Linux to succeed on a wider scale more effort needs to be put into the details. Windows kicks butt in the desktop, standardized interface for users. Windows falls flat on its face in the server realm many times because of its feature heavy stance while having lack of security and unwillingness to 'play nice' with vendors. Linux has already succeeded in the hard part. There needs to be a different view when trying put Linux into the desktop. Things like driver support, font support, GAMING support, and portals for updating are a must. Don't expect everyone to compile all their own apps and just 'like it or lump it'; that attitude combined with current Major Linux vendors charging too much will keep linux 'in the dark' for most users.
Hey! Linux SUCKS because it won't recognize my hardware. To find out what hardware it is, I want you to go wading through my online discussion site and DRIVE UP MY AD HITS!!!
So, we're looking for "SoundMAX Digital Audio".
Just by coincidence, that is the same as on the IBM T40 laptops.
Now, I boot a Knoppix 3.3 CD in the T40 I have right here and....... it works. I get sound. I get automatically detected and configured sound. I get automatically detected and configured and working sound on the chipset that HE SAID DID NOT WORK.
And I used a distribution that he said he used.
Now everyone knows why Fred would not Name That Hardware in his articles.
He wants to write a couple of articles about how Linux sucks when compared to Windows.
When the fact is that there seems to be something wrong with the hardware he has, or the virtualization software he is running.
If anyone else wants to try, just download the Knoppix CD (3.3 was out when he was writing, so using the new 3.4 version would not be fair) and try booting it on a machine with the "SoundMAX Digital Audio" onboard chipset.
It works for me with an IBM T40 laptop.
Fred says he has lots of problems.
A little research and some experimentation can work wonders.
Yet someone complaining about how Linux users are so immature and petty receives a +5?
I've heard the same thing from developers. They simply CANNOT get the specs from the manufacturers. Not only with sound, but with video cards as well.
This is different in the NIC market.
The fact is that until Linux has 51%+ of the market, the home use items (like sound and modems) will work better with Windows.
This is not "Linux's Achilles Heel" as Fred claims. This is basic economics.
The way around this is to clearly identify what does and what does NOT work with Linux. This is something that Fred has resisted in his articles. Why? Well, only Fred can say for sure.
He bought a Linux distribution for as much money as Windows would have cost.
I dispute that. How much extra would he have to pay to get the same functionality on Windows as he gets *at no extra cost* with the Linux distro?
He has every right to complain, tell everyone what happened, and not be ridiculed, called an idiot, or accused of spreading FUD for doing so.
He doesn't have a natural right to not be ridiculed or flamed, but I agree that he, and others like him, should be granted that right by the community.
That's assuming, of course, that he is actually offering constructive criticism and not just spreading FUD. Strangely enough, most people who approach the community with a well framed question or polite, constructive criticism are well recieved. The people who get ridiculed or flamed are the ones who come off as whiney bitches who would rather rant and rave and make hollow, obscure threats regarding mindshare or the marketplace than arrive at a solution.
If you're one of the people who's been ridiculed or flamed, you might consider changing your approach. More than likely you brought it on yourself.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Why is it that just because the sound card works in windows, and does not work in linux, that it is some huge oversight on the part of the developers of linux. Why not ask the manufacturor why it doesn't work in linux. Most of the drivers for windows were written by the company that made the hardware, not windows. Don't be so quick to assume that its some linux developer's duty to make some obscure on board sound card work for you. Go blame the manufacturor.