A GNU/Linux Distro Needing Windows To Install?

dgun writes "I recently put together a new PC. When I purchased the motherboard, I noticed that it came with an instant-on OS, a small GNU/Linux distro called Splashtop. I assumed that the OS was on a ROM chip on the motherboard. To my great annoyance, when I tried to boot to this OS, a message said that it was not installed. It turns out that motherboard comes with an install disk for this GNU/Linux OS — that you can only run from Windows, to install Splashtop on the hard drive. First of all, doesn't installing it on the hard drive defeat the point of having an instant-on OS? If I wanted to dual-boot a small GNU/Linux OS, there are plenty that I could choose from. Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?"

Comments

give me a break

[Sir_Lewk]

Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?

No. Stop being absurd. There are plenty examples of GPLd programs meant only for windows. While this might be a little silly in this case there is nothing "wrong" with it and you need to stop getting so upset about it.

Re:give me a break

[ModernGeek]

I was thinking not to give them any ideas for GPLv4.

Re:give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

This is different from a program meant only for Windows, though. This is a program which can only be *distributed* using Windows.

That makes it more like "we'll sell you the binary, and include an offer to sell you the source code separately", which is also explicitly allowed by the GNU GPL.

Re:give me a break

[PhunkySchtuff]

No, this is a program that is *distributed* on CD- (or DVD-) ROM.
You can only install it using Windows, but as has been mentioned above, there's nothing in the GPL, and there never should be, anything about having software that only runs under Windows.

Re:give me a break

[noidentity]

Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?

How does it being for a particular OS take away a user's freedom to use it or modify it to work standalone? Or do you think that all GPL software shouldn't require any OS, or any hardware at all? Sounds like you think the GPL is a "make whatever I don't like a violation" license.

Re:give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're wrong: You can distribute this program very well without Windows. In fact, I can go and download it off the site right now using any OS I like, and then redistribute the program from there.

The fact that you can't install the program because you don't meet the minimum requirements (having Windows) is not covered by the GPL.If it did, we'd have to stop distributing GPLed software on CDs as well, because it requires that you have a CD-ROM drive, which usually includes closed-source firmware.

Re:give me a break

[Hal_Porter]

I was thinking not to give them any ideas for GPLv4.

That reminds me, I must email Stallman to lobby for forced collectivisation of all ideas in GPLv4. Idea-kulaks must be liquidated.

Re:give me a break

[XO]

I think submitter believes that GPL is specifically something having to do with Linux. Damn kids.

Back in the days before there was Linux, we used the GNU tools on BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, on AIX (where we could get them to work), on IRIX, on .. whatever NeXT's OS was called.. and virtually every piece of software there was that didn't come with the operating systems that was on each system was GPL.

Re:give me a break

[dgun]

So I overreacted. But still, this is a little different than just downloading and installing some FOSS software on Windows. Part of the software is on the BIOS, or rather there must be some instructions in the BIOS to look for Splashtop, which ASUS calls Express Gate. And what of the setup program? Does the source for the setup program have to be provided? True the setup is probably just copying files, but it would be nice to know exactly where and what the BIOS is looking for to determine whether or not Express Gate is installed.

Anyway, I was just pissed off because the way the thing was distributed, and I find it a little more than ironic that Asus is marketing an instant-on Linux distro as a feature to sell their motherboards, yet requires Windows to run it.

byw, I have read on Ubuntu forums that Express Gate source is available on ASUS' website, but as yet have been unable to find it.

Re:give me a break

[shentino]

Except that in order to install the program you have to get into windows.

...which implies agreeing to the EULA and making the windows tax nonrefundable.

One of the few times where you can get ripped off and still get your money's worth.

Re:give me a break

[selven]

Won't adding a provision to the GPL specifically about Windows violate the non-discrimination requirement?

Re:give me a break

[UncleTogie]

byw, I have read on Ubuntu forums that Express Gate source is available on ASUS' website, but as yet have been unable to find it.

That's 'cause these folks make Splashtop, not ASUS. You can find the sourcecode at their page here...

Re:give me a break

[sumdumass]

Well now. That would seem to be a violation of the GPL to some degree, or could be. If you don't give the source code with the GPLed software when you distribute it, you have to either accompany it with a piece of paper describing how to get it from you or provide it for download yourself in a manner consistent and obvious.

So if the source code isn't provided on the CD, or there isn't some piece of paper saying where to get the source code, putting it on Splashtop's site without some obvious reference to the fact could be a GPL violation.

Re:give me a break

[adamofgreyskull]

Asus are distributing a copy of the software on a CD so that the OP can install it. They should be either providing the source code, or providing a way to access the source code.

GPL. Section 6. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Re:give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

> .. whatever NeXT's OS was called..

Uh, you mean NEXTSTEP?

Re:give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does the GPL guarantee that you must be able to run any particular program on any particular platform?

All it says is that you must be allowed to run the program for any purpose.

Re:give me a break

[Darkness404]

But did they attempt to contact Asus?

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

That seems to allow them to have it hosted on Splashtop's site. If they didn't even attempt to contact Asus, much less Google Splashtop and look at their site, I don't see how you can call it a violation.

Re:give me a break

[adolf]

Bingo.

I'd like to take a moment to point out how important it is, when reading a contract or any other sort of written agreement, to read the whole thing -- not just the parts you like.

It seems pedantic to have to spell this out, but since so many folks here seem to need it spelled out for them . . .

Re:give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you were so inclined, you could modify the Splashtop source code so that you may install it from within your own choice of operating system, and never be required to agree to the Windows EULA.

Re:give me a break

[RockDoctor]

Won't adding a provision to the GPL specifically about Windows violate the non-discrimination requirement?

What "non-discrimination requirement"?

No, seriously, what?

I don't recall having seen anything like that in GPL v2 (which I did read carefully) nor GPL v3 (which I've only skimmed through).

What would you non-discriminate against? Would you propose for example that any GPL'd device drivers for a novel PCI-X graphics card be required (in a non-discriminatory way) to compile and install for PDP-11 architecture?
(The PDP is not chosen at random ; it could run some linuxes, even with the magnificent 128MB of core memory that mine had. Allegedly.)

Re:give me a break

[selven]

It's in the open source definition and/or the free software definition, don't remember exactly.

Re:give me a break

[Duggeek]

TFP does have a point... it does seem a bit backwards to have a Linux-supportive firmware that requires Windows—which is far beyond firmware—in order to establish it.

As for violating the GPL... hrm... I can see how it seems wrong, but I'll side with parent in saying it doesn't appear that the software has violated its own freedom in any way. The choice of Winodws as the installation platform may be inconvenient and unfortunate as well as just plain silly, but it's not actually compromising itself. Besides, being GPL'ed, what's there to stop anybody from porting it?

Re:give me a break

[RockDoctor]

It's in the open source definition and/or the free software definition, don't remember exactly.

[SIGH] Well, having just spent a half hour looking for "discriminatory" commentary in GPLv3 and in discussion on v2 ... and not finding it. It's your assertion ; defend it or drop it.

I goofed previously. I referred to my PDP-11's "magnificent 128MB of core memory" ; that was, of course, a typo for "128kB of core memory". About as much as could be fitted on one of the 8" diskettes.

Re:give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

On my ASUS mobo, you get the option to boot the Express Gate linux and use it. You don't even need an HDD. It just works (TM).

Gimmic; but not sinister

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Splashtop is available in ROM(well, almost certainly flash, not actual ROM) on certain motherboards; but that involves actual components, and raises the cost. Presumably, the maker of the motherboards has some sort of bulk licence with the Splashtop guys, so providing the HDD version is virtually free, and adds a bullet point. Pretty useless; but you can see why that happens.

Re:Gimmic; but not sinister

[tepples]

Presumably, the maker of the motherboards has some sort of bulk licence with the Splashtop guys, so providing the HDD version is virtually free, and adds a bullet point.

If the Splashtop installer were a bootable CD, much like the installer for almost every other popular PC Linux distribution on the planet, there wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Gimmic; but not sinister

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

True. I'm not sure why they did that. I assume that it is "more user friendly" in the same way that DSL modems that come with no setup information, just a horrible setup CD containing an activeX based (IE6 on 2000/XP only) setup CD are "more user friendly". Idiotic; but not wildly unexpected.

Port the code then

[eggman9713]

I'm sure quickly enough someone will port it to be installable without Windows. I'm sure it was meant to be for the typical user who has windows installed first, and just wants the instant on one for when they just need the browser quickly and the computer is not on. Someone, anti-MS or not, will port it, I'm sure. Isn't open source great?

Re:Port the code then

[JackieBrown]

kano from kanotix has made some nice scripts for customizing it.

http://techgage.com/news/splashtop_hacked_functions_on_non-asus_motherboards/

Re:Port the code then

[Lord Kano]

Interesting name, I wonder where he got it.

LK

Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[LurkerXXX]

The poster of the story didn't even bother to read the link he provided... You can install it from a USB drive from the source. Asus simply doesn't provide that installer on their install CD.

This is a non-story. The distro doesn't need windows to install. The distributor was just being cheap.

I don't really think so

[Tenebrousedge]

Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?

Is that a trick question? The GPL says nothing about Windows, it just says that if they're distributing GPL'd binaries, you should be able to get the source code from them. Just because you don't like something does not mean it should be illegal.

Re:I don't really think so

[Nutria]

Just because you don't like something does not mean it should be illegal.

Where have you been for the past, ohhhh, since-the-beginning-of-humanity???

A huge chunk of humanity (and, believe you me: not just right-wing religious fundamentalists) thrives on telling other people what to do and think, how to dress, etc, etc ad nauseum, and do their damnedest to ensconce their beliefs into law...

Re:I don't really think so

[handydan918]

Just because you don't like something does not mean it should be illegal.

Where have you been for the past, ohhhh, since-the-beginning-of-humanity???

A huge chunk of humanity (and, believe you me: not just right-wing religious fundamentalists) thrives on telling other people what to do and think, how to dress, etc, etc ad nauseum, and do their damnedest to ensconce their beliefs into law...

Well, I think it should be illegal to make things illegal just because someone doesn't like them.....

Re:I don't really think so

[Bigjeff5]

Look, just because you don't like the fact that people make things illegal just because someone doesn't like them does NOT mean it should be illegal to make things illegal because someone doesn't like them for no other reason than because you don't like them.

Re:I don't really think so

[Joe Snipe]

hello? did no one read the signature? this is obviously +5 insightful...

Re:I don't really think so

[Lord Kano]

Just because you don't like something does not mean it should be illegal.

He sounds like those assholes who call 911 when McDonalds gets their food order wrong.

LK

I don't see the point about GPL

[iamacat]

As long as you provide the source code on demand, it doesn't matter if the binary only works for Windows or even if you are charged $1000 to get a copy. Splashtop is designed as a secondary system for Windows. Other installers are probably not their priority.

Re:I don't see the point about GPL

[Repossessed]

You also need to provide the installation and compiling scripts. Relevant in this case, since said scripts are what you need in order to do the porting.

Re:I don't see the point about GPL

[Nursie]

"As long as you provide the source code on demand, it doesn't matter if the binary only works for Windows or even if you are charged $1000 to get a copy."

I'm pretty sure there's some provision for the source to be made available for a reasonable fee - i.e. media, shipping and time. You can charge what you like for the software, but when you've given them the binaries the source must be made available at reasonable cost of reproduction.

I got a motherboard for this "feature" as well

[JackieBrown]

Fortunately, I read the customer reviews at newegg so I was expecting it.

I installed windows then splashtop. Splashtop is pretty but was not worth the time for the installation of windows.

I was hoping I would at least be able to update my bios through it.

It can't update the bios and cannot read any of my partitions.

I changed my bios setting pretty quick to skip it from asking me to load splashtop.

Which motherboard was it?

[bogaboga]

I would like to know which motherboard you're talking about so that I can avoid this nonsense...and here's why: -

...To my great annoyance, when I tried to boot to this OS, a message said that it was not installed. It turns out that motherboard comes with an install disk for this GNU/Linux OS -- that you can only run from Windows...

Doesn't this state of matters boarder on the brink of insanity?

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I dont know the OP, probably the ASUS boards. A lot of them come with at least the software for "ExpressGate" as they call it. My board; the P5Q-SE2, had the install software on the DVD, but I had to manually install to the hard drive, the higher priced boards have basically a USB flash drive attached to the MB. Though I did uninstall the ExpressGate software within a few hours of messing with it.

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[Lehk228]

Doesn't this state of matters boarder on the brink of insanity? No, it really doesn't. Don't get so hysterical.

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[GameboyRMH]

Needing a three-digit piece of software to start installing an operating system is incredibly stupid, bordering on insane. Luckily if you RTFA that's not really the case, but I've seen similarly asinine things - like a mainboard that needs Windows, IE and ActiveX to stream BIOS updates from the Internet into your chip (not kidding), along with a host of Windows-only firmware update utilities - sure, you could give those a try in WINE, but why not use a boot disk? Running firmware updates from an OS is a pretty unsafe thing to do in any case - there's a lot more to fail in the process and leave you with bricked hardware.

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[houstonbofh]

but I've seen similarly asinine things - like a mainboard that needs Windows, IE and ActiveX to stream BIOS updates from the Internet into your chip (not kidding)

Please tell us what that was. I need to avoid that mess for many reasons! With that kind of stupid in the updates, what is in the code?!?

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[GameboyRMH]

MSI Eclipse SLI - one of the top gaming mobos right now. Well known to brick themselves during BIOS updates regardless of the method used. Had to RMA mine but all was well once they sent me a working and updated one.

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[houstonbofh]

MSI Eclipse SLI - one of the top gaming mobos right now. Well known to brick themselves during BIOS updates regardless of the method used. Had to RMA mine but all was well once they sent me a working and updated one.

RMA for a BIOS update? And people thought a floppy was bad...

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[dgun]

It's an ASUS board. I don't think all of them are like this, but the one I got was. For the record, it was not evident from the description of the board that it required an installation disk. To me it defeats the whole purpose. People say read RTFM, but it's kind of difficult to RTFM when you don't have TFM. And it would have never occurred to me to do so anyway in this case, considering what I understood an instant-on OS to be .

People have so easily dismissed my question about the licensing issue, which is my fault due to the way I worded it. But I'm still not quite satisfied. For one thing, what exactly is on the BIOS? And is that portion of the code available? This isn't just Splashtop, but is ASUS' modified version called Express Gate. If the system is whatever is on the ROM + Splashtop on the drive, that should be considered a modification of the system IMO, depending on the details. And what of the setup program? I know the source does not have to be provided on the CD, but I have been unable to find it on ASUSâ€(TM) website either.

Someone provided the link to the source of Splashtop, but this is ASUSâ€(TM) modified version called Express Gate.

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to say it, but you really need to RTM or in this case the sales literature. It's not a modified version of Splash Tops release. It is the release. ASUS just calls the "FEATURE" Express Gate. And provides a updater/uploader program called Express Gate Updater.

You can get the source to the image file that the Express Gate Updater (which is the only part of this setup that's windows only) uses to flash the Instant On OS to the Mother Boards chip from the creator, in this case Splash Tops website.

Low end boards ($50-$70 give or take) don't have this chip but the bios has settings allowing a small partition on the host drive to be used for Splash Top install creating a similar feature all though it doesn't boot as fast as the on chip version does.

As for not being able to see your host drive, what good is that if you can't save to it? I don't know of any Linux distro that can legally write to a NTFS formatted partition anyway. So why piss off the intended targets "Noobs" with a distro that can read the drive in a instant on enviroment but can't save anything to it?

It's just a clever way for a Distro to get itself on to a vast number of PC's in a convenient and easy way for the end user to expose them to alternative OS's and for Splash Top to make a buck while giving ASUS another feature for there motherboards to make them more appealing to the consumer.

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[RivieraKid]

I don't know of any Linux distro that can legally write to a NTFS formatted partition anyway.

How about, oh, I don't know - all of them?

It doesn't matter what Microsoft would like you to believe, there is nothing illegal in writing to an NTFS formatted partition. Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is expressly permitted by law.

Re:Which motherboard was it?

[Znork]

I had the same experience with MSI K9N Neo (one of the early AM2 motherboards). No BIOS flash without Windows.

That turned me off of MSI permanently; I'm not going to spend hours on their website to figure out what mobos I can safely buy (and I mean, it's not like this is a don't-have-windows issue, there are all sorts of ways that this is a PITA even if you do have Windows).

Being used to ASUS variants where you can stick any USB disk with a BIOS in a USB port and update, and where you even have a secondary BIOS loader, I was quite appalled. Not even any way to update the BIOS from a legacy floppy :(. (And yes, that mobo is bricked now, on a shelf with a dead BIOS).

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[Ryvar]

Yeah, the original post is terrible. If he was *really* trying to get people to needlessly hyperventilate he should have titled it "A GNU/Linux distro needing BSD to install?!?!"

gpl violation?

[someone1234]

If you cannot use the binary, it wasn't even 'distributed'.
How would it be a gpl violation?
Got the sources? Or do you know whether the sources are available for download?

Re:gpl violation?

[Tubal-Cain]

If you cannot use the binary, it wasn't even 'distributed'.

Sure it was. I don't think owning a DVD player is a prerequisite for Wal-Mart selling (distributing) a DVD to you.

How would it be a gpl violation?

It's not. Where OP pulled that out from, I don't know. Nothing in the GPL says "Don't use APIs and programming languages that aren't implemented on more than one OS."

Re:gpl violation?

[houstonbofh]

If you cannot use the binary, it wasn't even 'distributed'.

Based on current case law, yes it was. Now pay your $8 million.

The GPL Angle

[Bob9113]

Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?

I don't think so. GPL is mostly about granting access and rights to the source, under certain conditions, so you can modify the code to work on your system, not about requiring the author to make it work on your system. If it only runs on Windows, so be it, as long as the source code is Freely available so it can be fixed.

Now, if they're not making the source available through reasonable means, well, that's another problem, and is a violation of the GPL. But the "requires Windows as distributed" thing is the same as lots of GPL software.

Re:Jesus Christ

[uepuejq]

liGNUx (tm)

Not to mention

[VincenzoRomano]

BIOS and firmware upgrades that only work from Windows ... or from a USB floppy disk!
Ask ASUS (but I'm sure it's not the only manufacturer)!

Re:Not to mention

[tagno25]

BIOS and firmware upgrades that only work from Windows ... or from a USB floppy disk!

You can always burn a CD with FreeDOS, the Award flashing utility, and the firmware and flash the BIOS from that if the BIOS is made by Award (most are)

Re:Not to mention

[a09bdb811a]

This isn't such an annoying issue anymore. Most BIOSes these days have a built-in flasher, and can read the BIOS from any local FAT filesystem, including a USB drive. If not, you can format a USB flash drive so that it appears as a floppy and boots DOS normally. You definately don't need a real floppy or CDROM drive anymore (praise Vishnu).

Re:Not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

So I burn a new CD for every upgrade ...
That doesn't sound very efficient and environment savvy, though!

Re:Not to mention

[VincenzoRomano]

Not ASUS. A USB floppy is the only way.

Re:Not to mention

[Miseph]

Here in the future, we have CD-RWs that can be erased and rewritten. We also have DVD+/-RWs that do the same. Enjoy your stay, I'm pretty sure you'll find that things now are... um... rad?

Re:Not to mention

[brainnolo]

CD-RW.

Re:Not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

My ASUS-board flash just fine from an USB-stick.

Re:Not to mention

[IceFreak2000]

Bollocks; I have an ASUS Striker II Formula motherboard that I've updated the BIOS on several times - every single time with a USB flash drive; it's called 'EZ-Flash 2' and can be accessed from the BIOS setup menu or by hitting Alt-F2 at boot.

Re:Not to mention

[VincenzoRomano]

ASUS laptop, not MB.

Re:Not to mention

[IceFreak2000]

The original comment didn't mention Laptops once - it clearly states that this was a new machine built around an ASUS motherboard.

Re:Not to mention

[bami]

My Asus EEE 901 flashes fine from a USB flash drive. Just make sure you have an empty FAT-16 flashdrive with a file on it that the bios expects (in this case, 901.rom), and hit f-something during boot.

Re:Not to mention

[Edzilla2000]

No. Most, if not all ASUS motherboards have bios flasher that can read the bios from a USB stick.

Re:Not to mention

[GameboyRMH]

My MSI Eclipse SLI required Windows, IE and ActiveX to do BIOS updates. This mobo is notorious for bricking itself in the middle of the update process. I found a flash drive update package buried in the guts of their site, but it later turned out that they quietly buried it because it caused a higher incidence of brickings.

At least the RMA process went quickly.

Re:Not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

You won. Now what?

Re:Not to mention

[VincenzoRomano]

I never used FAT16, but only FAT32, which is on all my DOS formatted USB media.
Because it was not mentioned anywhere in my laptop documentation.

Re:Not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

yay?

Re:Not to mention

[Jesus_666]

I think that's implied. I mean, who still burns non-rewritable CDs/DVDs? The regular ones have only downsides, except for a very slight price difference.

Re:Not to mention

[drinkypoo]

I think that's implied. I mean, who still burns non-rewritable CDs/DVDs? The regular ones have only downsides, except for a very slight price difference.

First, the price difference is immense if you buy non-shit media. Second, rewritables have a staggeringly higher failure rate. Third, rewritables have a substantially shorter shelf life. Fourth, it's a super bitch to read a scratched disc and I don't want to have to treat my discs like precious treasures.

If I'm just installing Linux or flashing BIOS or something, sure, I use a RW. If I want to be sure I'll be able to play it in a car stereo for the next few months, I'm using a highly-compatible write-once disc.

Re:Not to mention

[XO]

I can pick up 100 blank CDR around here for around $10, sometimes less if on sale. CD-RWs are virtually unfindable in my local area, at retail, and DVD-R's are around $30 for a $10 pack. It's a bit bizarre.

Then again, none of my writers actually work right, so.. don't really care much.

Re:Not to mention

[houstonbofh]

So I burn a new CD for every upgrade ... That doesn't sound very efficient and environment savvy, though!

If that twenty cents is really making a difference in your monthly budget, you have bigger problems.

But if you want, you can just make a bootable flash drive the same way and copy the file over.

Re:Not to mention

[houstonbofh]

You won. Now what?

Buy the t-shirt?

Re:Not to mention

[houstonbofh]

This isn't such an annoying issue anymore. Most BIOSes these days have a built-in flasher, and can read the BIOS from any local FAT filesystem...

Oh, damn. Here come the Microsoft lawyers...

Re:Not to mention

[tomhudson]

I think that's implied. I mean, who still burns non-rewritable CDs/DVDs? The regular ones have only downsides, except for a very slight price difference.

WTF - you've got a Mobus DISK??? - all the disks I've seen have both a down side and an up side. A disk that had only a downside would be able to store twice as much data ... where do I get them?

Re:Not to mention

[schon]

BIOS and firmware upgrades that only work from Windows ... or from a USB floppy disk!
Ask ASUS (but I'm sure it's not the only manufacturer)!

Bullshit.

I've used tons of ASUS boards, and none require a USB floppy.

Re:Not to mention

[geminidomino]

all the disks I've seen have both a down side and an up side.

"There are two sides to every Schwartz"

Re:Not to mention

[SpooForBrains]

In fact, you can take the bootable floppy image and burn it straight to abootable CD using this process. I've used this successfully to upgrade the BIOS of a machine with no floppy drive.

Re:Not to mention

[tomhudson]

all the disks I've seen have both a down side and an up side.

"There are two sides to every Schwartz"

I *so* want Spaceballs 2 - the Search for More Money!!!

Gotta be one of the best comedies of all time, and we were PROMISED it in the original!

Re:Not to mention

[geminidomino]

They were going to make "Spaceballs 3: The search for Spaceballs 2" but it withered. :(

They did make the animated series though.

Re:Not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

> Gotta be one of the best comedies of all time, and we were PROMISED it in the original!

"Spaceballs" has to be the weakest Mel Brooks comedy I've ever seen. I didn't see "To Be or Not To Be" or "Life Stinks," but that's mostly because I was so disappointed in "Spaceballs."

It had a funny line or two, but I didn't find it at all clever. Give me "Young Frankenstein" or "Blazing Saddles" any day!

Re:Not to mention

[tomhudson]

It had a funny line or two,

"Stop looking at my cans!"
"We're combing the desert - we didn't find shit!"
"I'm surrounded by Asshoes!"
"No sir, I didn't see you playing with your dolls!"
"No, this is Mr. Coffee. THIS is Mr. Radar."
"Scotty beamed us last night!"
"Why didn't someone tell me my ass is so fat?"
"Go chew your gum!"
"Are you CHICKEN. Colonel Saunders?"
"He's jamming our radar!"
"That makes us NOTHING!"
"She's a druish princess!"
"Amazing. That's the same combination I have on my luggage!"
"We're not doing it for the money, Barf. We're doing it for a SHITLOAD of money!"
"Sorry - it has a mind of its' own."
"Check, please!"
"Spaceballs - oh, shit! - there goes the neighbourhood!"
"Self-destruct in 10 seconds, 9, 8, 6" "6? What happened to 7" "Just joking, 7, 6, 5 ..."
"They've gone plaid."
"I can't breathe in this thing!"

Re:Not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember those! But where are the funny ones..?

it's kdawson special

[timmarhy]

dawson take this stupid bullshit off the frontpage - it's crappy even for slashdot.

Re:it's kdawson special

[Sir_Lewk]

Yeah, I'm with this guy. This article is just plain terrible.

If you take it down now and we all just agree to pretend this never happened then the world will be a better place.

Re:it's kdawson special

[RoboRay]

kdawson is single-handedly bringing /. to the point that I don't even bother checking it every day anymore.

Re:it's kdawson special

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, quit your whining already. You losers have easily provided more irritation than the summary you're griping on and on about.

Re:it's kdawson special

[Anonymous Coward]

kdawson is single-handedly bringing /. to the point that I don't even bother checking it every day anymore.

Why not just remove kdawson from your author list in your preferences?

Re:it's kdawson special

[houstonbofh]

And yet, somehow you found the time to post to his article. Perhaps you doth protest too much... :)

Re:it's kdawson special

[RoboRay]

I guess you believe that if you ignore a problem, it will go away.

Re:it's kdawson special

[RoboRay]

I HAVE done that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. I just verified again that his name is unchecked, and yet, here I am seeing another of his turds.

Re:it's kdawson special

[houstonbofh]

Well, in this case, it would for you. Like I do my best to ignore Desperate Housewives, so it doesn't bother me at all.

Re:it's kdawson special

[Anonymous Coward]

ive noticed kdawson is responsible for many of the crapier posts, but as a long time reader, ive seen a lot of shit over a long period, and so i just choose to ignore them as you ignore the nubs and trolls on forums and irc.

but this really is such complete noob bullshit that should *NEVER* have been considered past the 2nd line. it's so bad, so poorly considered, and so inept for a moderator, kdawson could run for the next texan president!

GNU/Linux absurdity

[Simon80]

Don't get me wrong, I respect Richard Stallman's ideals and achievements, but there comes a point when Linux should simply be called Linux and not GNU/Linux. Chances are that a system like Splashtop is past that point, since it would probably have few, if any GNU packages included, given that it's based on busybox.

Re:GNU/Linux absurdity

[Sir_Lewk]

At least they're not calling it Busybox/Linux. It's far more typing...

Re:GNU/Linux absurdity

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it include gcc? That's the biggest thing Gnu has given us, but there are many others.

There's no point in having a free unix without the unix tools.

Re:GNU/Linux absurdity

[Simon80]

Why would it include gcc? Splashtop clearly wasn't designed to be a free Unix.

Re:GNU/Linux absurdity

[Anonymous Coward]

No one (except perhaps lunatics) is arguing that GNU is useless when it comes to Linux. What is being pointed out is that there is more to Linux (that is, the entire operating system, not just the kernel) than GNU. busybox replaces a whole lot of GNU tools; and if uclibc is being used, then one other of the large pieces of the GNU system is gone.

Linux would not be where it is today without GNU, but don't pretend that it's only GNU. Everybody knows that most Linux systems have GNU software on them.

There's no point in having a free unix without the unix tools.

A lot of the tools from the BSDs port over to Linux nicely. I have replaced GNU coreutils, findutils, and gzip, among others, with Free/Net/OpenBSD equivalents.

As for a gcc replacement, clang is quite capable (at least for C code) at this point. And so on. GNU is nice, but not the only game in town.

Re:GNU/Linux absurdity

[Anonymous Coward]

So do a lot of BSD and MacOS, your point.

Re:GNU/Linux absurdity

[thrash242]

there comes a point when Linux should simply be called Linux and not GNU/Linux.

You mean an infinite spectrum of points? The only time Linux should be called GNU/Linux is if GNU were to make its own distribution of Linux, in which case they could call it whatever they wanted.

Why don't the FSF make their own distro of Linux? Isn't GNU supposed to be an OS? Why must Stallman try to hijack all distros of Linux and try to take credit for most of it just because they use GNU software?

This GNU/Linux BS is the main reason I'm seriously considering switching to FreeBSD--to get away from the zealotry. I just want a free, open-source unix-like OS, not a intolerant religious ideology.

Re:GNU/Linux absurdity

[Simon80]

Why would you switch over it? Most development is unaffected by these petty squabbles.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[ssintercept]

not only terrible...

Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?

but pretentious shit.

even Stallman's beard would choke that tool out...

Incompetence is not a crime

[denobug]

Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?

Incompentence is not a crime, but instigating a false accusation, especially falsely accusing individuals of a crime, is. At least it is in civil court.

Re:Incompetence is not a crime

[tomhudson]

Incompentence (sic) is not a crime, but instigating a false accusation, especially falsely accusing individuals of a crime, is. At least it is in civil court.

No, it's not a crime in civil court. Civil courts are for, among other things, torts, but not for crimes; criminal courts only. OJ Simpson was successfully sued in civil court for a tort, not a crime.

Tort law is a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations.[1] A person who suffers legal damages may be able to use tort law to receive compensation from someone who is legally responsible, or liable, for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort law defines what constitutes a legal injury and establishes the circumstances under which one person may be held liable for another's injury. Torts cover intentional acts and accidents. In contrast to criminal law (in which the offense is against the State and the State is the plaintiff), in tort law, the offense is against a person and that person is the plaintiff.

Re:Incompetence is not a crime

[Runaway1956]

Ahhhh. The common misperception. Crimes aren't referred to civil court - they are addressed in CRIMINAL court. Notice the giveaway in the root word - CRIMe, CRIMinal?

A false accusation isn't a crime, it is a civil offense, as you almost seemed to comprehend. Civil offenses generally aren't "punished" as are criminal offenses. In most civil offenses, the complainant is attempting to have the court redress loss, of some sort, such as loss of reputation, loss of money, loss of life - the list goes on. For that reason, one can be tried for the same offense in criminal court, as well as in civil court. The state demands punishment for murder, so the defendant stands trial for the criminal offense of murder, then later goes to trial for a civil case of wrongful death. Wrongful death is not a criminal offense, though. There are any number of circumstances in which a defendant might have to pay damages for a wrongful death, but the state never charges that person with a crime.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[finity]

I dream of the day that we see the article titled: "A Windows distro needing Linux to install?!?!"

Re:Stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Grow the fuck up."

Glass houses...

Wine?

[Anonymous Coward]

You never know.

Yep.. nothing new.

[cyberjock1980]

I love these motherboard manufacturers. I used to buy ASUS for their new "power saving" feature called EPU. You guessed it, requires Windows. I even went so far as to install Windows just to enable the feature, then reboot into Linux. Didn't work. It doesn't even work with some versions of Windows (Server 2003 x64 I believe).

So, I switched to Gigabyte motherboards. They have the same feature, but they call it DES. Of course, again, it only works in Windows. And again, rebooting into Linux after booting into Windows doesn't fix it.

This might be a nuisance, but I actually BOUGHT both of those motherboards with the intention of using those power saving features... in Linux! I couldn't take them back for a refund, the manufacturer told me too bad, so I'm stuck with them. Nowhere in any documentation from the manufacturers does it state it requires a particular OS. They should be completely honest with their consumer and tell us what features will require a particular OS. Otherwise, I'm going to expect it to work based on hardware/BIOS options.

I feel your pain, but I regret to inform you that if you consider yourself "had", you were "had" when you took it home.

I understand the argument with drivers not being available for Linux. But geez, this is out of control.

Re:Yep.. nothing new.

[countach]

Back in my pre-Mac days when I could be bothered with all this stuff, I always assumed as my starting point that nothing works with Linux, until proven otherwise with sufficient research on the internet. Like it or not, the computer parts industry is still basically a Windows world. Nothing works outside Windows unless proven otherwise.

Re:Yep.. nothing new.

[Ant P.]

I check on review sites before buying hardware. Haven't been stung in a few years now.

Though I suppose the right thing to do would be checking with the manufacturer directly too, just to cause them the annoyance of having to tell their own potential customers their hardware sucks. If enough people do it (which will probably never happen) the message might get through.

Re:Yep.. nothing new.

[Nutria]

I couldn't take them back for a refund, the manufacturer told me too bad, so I'm stuck with them.

That's why I buy from Newegg.

Re:Yep.. nothing new.

[houstonbofh]

This might be a nuisance, but I actually BOUGHT both of those motherboards with the intention of using those power saving features... in Linux! I couldn't take them back for a refund, the manufacturer told me too bad, so I'm stuck with them.

Oh, yes you can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty In your case, Warranty of Fitness. And you can bring this case in a local JP court without an attorney, and include your costs to do so. Usually the threat is enough.

The reason that they get away with it is that we let them.

Re:Yep.. nothing new.

[xycadium]

Did you threaten to file a complaint with the BBB and possibly the FTC? I would view this as a form of false advertisement.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[mfraz74]

Yeah, I followed the link and was greeted with a page of instructions in French. At least I was able to understand the Bash commands!

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[willyd357]

I second that.

Motivations

[Dhalka226]

Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?

Why? Because you don't like Windows?

Look, suck it up. The GPL is about freedom, and that includes for your mortal software enemies. So long as they are releasing any changes they made to the code (and in all likelihood they just bundled it up and didn't change a thing) they're in full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the GPL.

This is as stupid as asking whether or not people should be allowed to license software under the GPL if it only runs on Windows. Spiteful non-issues like this are one of the major things that give open-source/free software movements a bad name.

Re:Motivations

[PiSkyHi]

There isn't any one point here I fully disagree with, this KDawson is a bit of a dweeb, or a master of the set-up, I'm uncertain.

There was a time however, when people who built with the GPL did it with all the passion of creating a system that did not require Microsoft products to operate.

I see this is what is being pointed at and for slashdotters to come out and basically bend over to any/all principles in the name of freedom is just a bit sad really.

I have a BIOS with expressgate at work and due to the way I use a computer, I couldn't believe for a second that I would need to install something on my PC via Windows alone to make use of such a BIOS, why ? because it is absurd.

The success of GPL software comes about by keeping an eye on vested interests - it should be a little embarrassing for a computer guy to not appreciate that vested interests control the growth, the quality and the direction of GPL software. If it requires Windows to be installed, in many ways it doesn't serve the interests of the GPL, for people like myself, such software is a waste of energy, since installing Windows on a machine is something I do not enjoy.

IMO, software that is supposed to make my life easier is only going to succeed if it starts out by being easy to install. I'm sure we can all see the small paradox of having a system that defeats the need to run windows all the time, by installing it only from windows. Maybe the current Windows users cannot.

Turns out this may not be the case here, still, I havn't seen expressgate working yet because apparently it wasn't already there. I don't need it - if I have to put work in to get a good BIOS, I will use OFW.

I don't mean to be rude, I just see so many people posting here think Stallman is a bit of nutter and yet they probably don't see the connection between good principles and vested interests.

Re:give me a break please!

[Fr33thot]

What exactly does the media it is "distributed" on have anything to do with GPL? As pointed out above, there is plenty of GPL'd software written for Windows and yes the license is OS agnostic as it should be. So what exactly is your point here?

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[gaderael]

Well, I've had to use liveCD a couple of times to save data off of a Windows install before reformatting. Does that count?

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[Anonymous Coward]

...I second that.

GNU/Solaris

[tepples]

I was thinking not to give them any ideas for GPLv4.

I only hope you were joking:

• It's best to get users hooked on cross-platform copylefted applications so that when they do take the plunge into a Free kernel, the lack of immediate retraining makes a better first impression. I know it wouldn't have been practical for me to try Puppy and later Ubuntu without having first used the Windows versions of OpenOffice.org, Firefox, GIMP, and the GCC/Binutils/Coreutils/Make toolchain.
• Both GPLv2 and GPLv3 contain a special exception for "System Libraries" that implement a published or de facto standard API. This is because the GNU userland was always meant to run on non-free operating systems such as Solaris so that it could be developed in parallel with the HURD kernel.
• Besides, even if GPLv4 requires apps to run only on top of Free "System Libraries", people are trying to make an NT-compatible kernel whose userland is Wine.

Are you an idiot?

[nedlohs]

Are you seriously trying to claim that I can't release software for a non-Free OS under the GPL.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[houstonbofh]

Well, I've had to use liveCD a couple of times to save data off of a Windows install before reformatting. Does that count?

Nahh... People use Linux to remove Windows all the time.

Re:Stupid.

[houstonbofh]

"Grow the fuck up."

Glass houses...

I always preferred "Ohh look, honey! A matching pot and kettle set!" It makes them think a bit longer, and some people need the practice.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Next time

[Runaway1956]

1-800-cry-baby
and
1-888-asus-supp
and
www.asus.helpafuckingdummy.com

FFS, every hardware manufacturer I have ever heard of has a support line SOMEWHERE. Granted, some of the smaller fly-by-night mainboard people make it hard to find a support site, but they are there.

Personally, I'd be a bit embarrased to post on slashdot that I didn't know how to search for support.

It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

I swear some of you people are like the North Korean refugees who are afraid if they touch the ground in South Korea, their hands will rot and fall off.

Your glorious supreme leader and chief asshat-for-life, Richard M Stallman, is lying to you. If you use Windows, your hands will not rot and fall off.

The motherboard manufacturer obviously mistakingly though you were part of the 99% of users that used Windows, and gave you an easy tool to either flash directly (do not attempt this in linux) or flash a usb stick to install it on boot (cross platform would be awkward for that). In the days of incompatible mac applications, they would create hybrid disks with HFS+ layers that would offer the files to you with Mac metadata. You don't have this luxury in linux. There is no right way to distribute binaries, so the best they can do is offer Windows junk and assume if you have Linux, you probably occasionally boot into Windows anyway when you have to complete grownup work.

The issue is not INSTALLING A LINUX DISTRIBUTION. The issue is flashing a ROM on your motherboard. Windows has a much better grasp of the PC specification, for better or worse. I would imagine it's much easier to write a tool that flags the motherboard that it's time to write from (either a ROM or the filesystem) to the ROM on reboot in Windows (ASUS style) or to provide a canned solution to image a usb stick in Windows. If you are a linux user, you might find syslinux and an img file somewhere on the CD that you can easily just dd to a usb stick.

DO NOT attempt this in Wine, it's going to require a part of Windows that that's system/driver oriented. Wine is for high level compatibility, it does not know how to speak to the PC/BIOS/PCI system like Windows does. This is a situation where it's using the part of Windows that makes it an Operating System, not an API layer.

If your tinfoil hat is on so firmly that it can never be removed, and you are now afraid of any system that is not approved by your glorious leader, this might have a better shot of working in ReactOS than it ever would in Linux. Of course, I assume that, like every other PC system, they don't understand the PC specification either, so it's going to get close to working and break something. I take no responsibility but to laugh at you--that is my duty.

Re:It's like North Korea

[ratboy666]

"asshat"
"You don't have this luxury in linux. There is no right way to distribute binaries, so the best they can do is offer Windows junk and assume if you have Linux, you probably occasionally boot into Windows anyway when you have to complete grownup work."
"Windows has a much better grasp of the PC specification" "I assume that, like every other PC system, they don't understand the PC specification either"

Well, I could try arguing here, but somehow I feel that it would be a waste of time. To keep it short and simple:

Fuck you.

As a clue for others (malevolentjelly, stop reading):

A statically linked binary will work. Just have a console application.

Re:It's like North Korea

[Runaway1956]

"it's going to require a part of Windows that that's system/driver oriented"

I presume that you refer to that portion of Windows that acts as a DOS emulator. DRDOS was THE standard for flashing, only a few years ago. Manufacturers STILL recommend making a bootable DOS disk for flashing purposes. It is still dangerous to attempt flashing operations from within Windows, no matter the marketing aspect of doing so.

It seems that you may be a bit infatuated with Bill Gate's operating system. In fact, the only reasons we don't routinely flash from Linux involve proprietary mfrs refusing to code for Linux.

I recently bought a board for the purpose of flashing chips that had been bricked. It works fine, and I've rescued three "dead" boards so far. Unfortunately, I can only run the software on Windows. It won't run from a virtual machine (or, at least, I'm not smart enough to have figured out how to do so) and I genuinely fear the results of running it in Wine. There ARE NO DRIVERS OR SOFTWARE available for Linux.

Personally, I think that rescuing dead mainboards is serious shitzls. I just hate to do such a chore with a frivolous Windows gaming machine.

Re:It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

I presume that you refer to that portion of Windows that acts as a DOS emulator.

I was actually talking about a tool that formats and images a usb stick. That's not the kind of behavior that Wine "emulates."

It seems that you may be a bit infatuated with Bill Gate's operating system. In fact, the only reasons we don't routinely flash from Linux involve proprietary mfrs refusing to code for Linux.

You mean Dave Cutler's operating system, right? I am a big fan of NT, I won't lie. I think motherboard manufacturer's disinterest in linux has more to do with a lack of consistent driver API's, and the knowledge that they don't have to waste time and money so that 15 of their users can play with UNIX on their systems (home users). Someone else will do it. Workstation oriented boards will be far more likely to have good linux/unix support, since there isn't a passable or popular home/desktop linux offering but it's pretty serious in the workstation.

When I make fun of linux users, I am generally talking about home linux users.

I recently bought a board for the purpose of flashing chips that had been bricked. It works fine, and I've rescued three "dead" boards so far. Unfortunately, I can only run the software on Windows. It won't run from a virtual machine (or, at least, I'm not smart enough to have figured out how to do so) and I genuinely fear the results of running it in Wine. There ARE NO DRIVERS OR SOFTWARE available for Linux.

If you're running a linux/unix oriented shop, then that's actually a pretty good idea. Linux remains intentionally obscured from the PC architecture, so it will never be the sort of system you flash PC motherboards from... and that's probably a good thing.

Personally, I think that rescuing dead mainboards is serious shitzls. I just hate to do such a chore with a frivolous Windows gaming machine.

I don't find NT 6 to be frivolous at all.

Re:It's like North Korea

[Burpmaster]

I swear some of you people are like the North Korean refugees who are afraid if they touch the ground in South Korea, their hands will rot and fall off.

Your glorious supreme leader and chief asshat-for-life, Richard M Stallman, is lying to you. If you use Windows, your hands will not rot and fall off.

Sometimes when an idea seems stupid to you, that's because it's actually wooshing over your head. Your comment reads like "Ha ha, if the Earth was round we'd fall off it you idiot!" If you stop assuming other people are morons, you just might learn something.

Re:It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

Sometimes when an idea seems stupid to you, that's because it's actually wooshing over your head. Your comment reads like "Ha ha, if the Earth was round we'd fall off it you idiot!" If you stop assuming other people are morons, you just might learn something.

Oh, so I take it you have something insightful to impart, then? What exactly am I missing?

Re:It's like North Korea

[Burpmaster]

There's a lot I could say, but I'll just focus on one point.

First, read up on the tragedy of the commons and the commons dilemma:

"The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen."

"The commons dilemma is a specific class of social dilemma in which people's short-term selfish interests are at odds with long-term group interests and the common good. In academia, a range of related terminology has also been used as shorthand for the theory or aspects of it, including resource dilemma, take-some dilemma, and common pool resource."

Some people try to take this problem into account when making decisions. To a naive person, it seems dogmatic, but it's actually quite pragmatic to behave in a way that would be in your interest if other people did the same. It lays the groundwork for your own interests to be served in the future.

For example, remember the dark age of the web? You had to use Internet Explorer or some sites wouldn't display right, look right, or even let you in. Despite that, some people were willing use the competition and demand that sites work with their alternative browsers. You might have told them to just use IE and stop complaining or made fun of them for "thinking IE will dissolve their hands," but it's thanks to them that we have IE8, Firefox 3.5, Chrome, Safari, and Opera 9. Without them we'd all still be on IE6 and there'd be ActiveX all over the place.

We're still in the dark age of operating systems, but the end is in sight. Consumers now have a Linux option with some vendors. And there's those netbooks. Eventually, not supporting Linux will be as common as requiring Internet Explorer on a website is today. And then there will be a large number of people switching.

When people want to avoid Windows, it's not about being cheap or crazy. It's about having control over where your money goes and not contributing to the single-party dominance that hurts the quality of software we all use.

Re:It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

Some people try to take this problem into account when making decisions. To a naive person, it seems dogmatic, but it's actually quite pragmatic to behave in a way that would be in your interest if other people did the same. It lays the groundwork for your own interests to be served in the future.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe you argued the tragedy of the commons in regard to a basic technical problem. Here I am talking about how you use Windows to flash ROMs because it adheres to the PC specification and has a binary distribution model (so you can ship a simple unique flashing app with the board) and it is easier to speak to the BIOS through it and you brought out the tragedy of the commons.

Let me attempt to look at this for what it is, a software environment for my home computing hardware. With that in mind...

Some might argue that you are pushing a far inferior form of single system dominance by pushing UNIX.. You're pushing something here that's archaic to the point of being dangerous to national security infrastructure, the linux operating system. This is just plain scary. It's scary because Linux is such a castle in the sky. It's a massive basket of failed promises and assurances to the point where it is basically a trojan horse for enterprise-like infrastructure. It's so low quality and insecure that its use in government applications literally frightens me. Do you have any idea how bad the virus situation would be if Linux was the dominant system instead of Windows? The UNIX security model doesn't apply to complex systems like Linux, you poor fools! Why does the "future" need to be a poorly implemented flavor of a system from the past?

And this topic was on Home Desktops... there are no home desktop linux distributions competitive with commercial offerings.

You've thrown out the entire technical precedent involved in a completely simple issue of operating system choice for consumer hardware (actually the use thereof for bios operations) and made it an issue of philosophy... you're pushing this amateur hacked-to-shit 1970's operating system on me for what seems like religious reasons.

For example, remember the dark age of the web? You had to use Internet Explorer or some sites wouldn't display right, look right, or even let you in. Despite that, some people were willing use the competition and demand that sites work with their alternative browsers. You might have told them to just use IE and stop complaining or made fun of them for "thinking IE will dissolve their hands," but it's thanks to them that we have IE8, Firefox 3.5, Chrome, Safari, and Opera 9. Without them we'd all still be on IE6 and there'd be ActiveX all over the place.

The IE example is terrible. Opera, Firefox (at one point), and Chrome can all be considered in some ways better or more advanced browsers than IE. They won legitimately, not idealistically. They are superior products. Linux is a sad and weak platform compared to Windows, so the issue fails. Now if you argued that something like BeOS should have succeeded Windows on a technical standpoint, maybe I could see your point. Maybe Mac OS X, but it's actually gaining market share. But Linux? Are you kidding me?

The web now-a-days sucks, anyway. It's full of useless javascript that makes it retardedly slow, everything is bloated, information flow is patchy, and it's basically dominated by a single entity wrapper, Google. Furthermore, people have lost track of the segregation of application and document models so now the web does both poorly.

We're still in the dark age of operating systems, but the end is in sight. Consumers now have a Linux option with some vendors. And there's those netbooks. Eventually, not supporting Linux will be as common as requiring Internet Explorer on a website is today. And then there will be a large number of people switching.

No. I don't think desktop linux will ever gain relevance. Not in its current form. If

Re:It's like North Korea

[Perky_Goth]

you probably occasionally boot into Windows anyway when you have to complete grownup work.
</blockquote>
If gaming is your idea of grownup work, sure.
<blockquote>
Windows has a much better grasp of the PC specification, for better or worse.
</blockquote>
I see. You're insane. Nevermind, then.

If you have a shitty story, only trolls and drunken mods will come out, I guess.

Re:It's like North Korea

[Perky_Goth]

And for my next trick, formating!

you probably occasionally boot into Windows anyway when you have to complete grownup work.

If gaming is your idea of grownup work, sure.

Windows has a much better grasp of the PC specification, for better or worse.

I see. You're insane. Nevermind, then.

If you have a shitty story, only trolls and drunken mods will come out, I guess.

Re:It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

I see. You're insane. Nevermind, then.

Do you even have any idea what the PC specification is? This means that Windows is built around the PC/BIOS architecture while linux is built around a more independent unix architecture. It's a technical truth, not an opinion.

If you weren't an abject moron, you might have argued that that was a good thing. Most would.

Re:It's like North Korea

[Burpmaster]

This is ridiculous. I can't believe you argued the tragedy of the commons in regard to a basic technical problem.

No, I did no such thing. My reply is only in response to the text I quoted. Hence my quoting that text. I could have corrected you that the fundamental assumption behind your rant that followed was flat out wrong, but I found your prejudicial attitude so much more disturbing.

Here I am talking about how you use Windows to flash ROMs

Why are you talking about that? This story has nothing to do with flashing the BIOS. This is about installing an OS to the hard drive.

because it adheres to the PC specification

This is a totally meaningless statement.

and has a binary distribution model (so you can ship a simple unique flashing app with the board)

Guess what? You can ship one binary that runs on every modern x86 Linux. It's not hard. Especially when your app only needs glibc and a command line interface.

and it is easier to speak to the BIOS through it

No, it's easier to speak to the BIOS through DOS. On both Linux and Windows you have to load your own specialized driver. Or you scrap that plan and provide a FreeDOS boot disk like 99% of motherboard manufacturers do.

and you brought out the tragedy of the commons.

Let me attempt to look at this for what it is, a software environment for my home computing hardware. With that in mind...

Some might argue that you are pushing a far inferior form of single system dominance by pushing UNIX..

I never said anything about single system dominance. In fact, that sort of standardization has some advantages. What I brought up was single-party dominance which is a totally different thing (though it often implies single system dominance). Single party dominance inflates the price of the product and reduces its quality.

You're pushing something here that's archaic to the point of being dangerous to national security infrastructure, the linux operating system. This is just plain scary. It's scary because Linux is such a castle in the sky. It's a massive basket of failed promises and assurances to the point where it is basically a trojan horse for enterprise-like infrastructure. It's so low quality and insecure that its use in government applications literally frightens me. Do you have any idea how bad the virus situation would be if Linux was the dominant system instead of Windows? The UNIX security model doesn't apply to complex systems like Linux, you poor fools! Why does the "future" need to be a poorly implemented flavor of a system from the past?

And this topic was on Home Desktops... there are no home desktop linux distributions competitive with commercial offerings.

Yeah there are. I could name some counterexamples, but I'm sure you'll just reactively disagree with me. But there are plenty of people having a better experience with Linux distros than they ever had with Windows. Both technical and inexperienced users. And you know what the number one complaint is? That a lot of software (games especially) and drivers aren't available for Linux... A problem not intrinsic to Linux but due to it not having over 90% market share.

You've thrown out the entire technical precedent involved in a completely simple issue of operating system choice for consumer hardware (actually the use thereof for bios operations) and made it an issue of philosophy... you're pushing this amateur hacked-to-shit 1970's operating system on me for what seems like religious reasons.

This statement is so full of fallacies it's hard to pick which ones to respond to. I didn't push an OS at all. I merely explained

Re:It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

Why are you talking about that? This story has nothing to do with flashing the BIOS. This is about installing an OS to the hard drive.

Do you have any idea what the original post was about? The Linux they're talking about boots from a ROM, not the hard disk. If you weren't so busy attempting to disarm my points without adhering to any sort of concrete or relevant information, maybe you could have found time to read that.

This is a totally meaningless statement.

You're not very "technical," are you? It's a lot easier for Windows to talk to ACPI, PCI, or BIOS, because Microsoft maintains the specifications and designs their system internals accordingly. Linux on a PC is the same as on any other platform, it's UNIX. It's not meant to act that way. That gives Windows an advantage for talking to the BIOS in general--it's a PC system by design. That's not saying Linux CAN'T, just that it generally doesn't because it's platform-independent by design.

(A bunch of whiny debate team lingo about my statements)

This is the internet, you prissy bitch. Stay on the goddamn subject.

Yeah, let's all judge operating systems by the stereotypes about their users... BTW, any fervently irrational UNIX/Linux geeks you've talked to were probably just getting defensive in response to your fervently irrational attacks on Linux. They're mirroring you, and whatever insanity you throw at them. Except they are most likely reasonable later, when they're actually dealing with another reasonable person.

I can't believe you have the gall to attack my post from a logical standpoint. This whole paragraph describes an imaginary conflict and resolution.

And do you think none of those new Mac users are intentionally avoiding Windows? Or is avoiding Windows only okay when the alternative has your approval? Most new Mac users are leaving Windows because they're dissatisfied with it. If they were happy with Windows, they wouldn't have switched. Another thing that helps Mac OS X adoption is that it comes preinstalled on a popular line of computers. Put a Linux machine on store shelves and people will buy that too.

Mac users are switching because it offers a better user experience. Desktop linux was sold in stores and on new computers for years (notably by Walmart) and has consistently failed in the market. Dell attempted to sell Ubuntu on PC's and that failed in the market. I suggest you look at the sales figures on linux vs. windows netbooks. Desktop linux was rejected by the market in lieu of Windows, even on netbooks where it was supposed to get a foothold. Google Chrome OS is currently the only hope the linux kernel has of running on mass-market consumer machines.

Wow, now you are arguing in favor of archaic designs. Well-written DHTML is often a much better user experience than the classic full-document reload on every click of the 90's. I don't even get what you're trying to say about Google...

I am merely saying that they've lost sight of the distinction between document and application. Information is served best through more simplistic formats, like Wikipedia. You like linking to Wikipedia, right? It makes you feel sooo smart.

Despite what your preconceived notions may tell you, I do understand what computing is, and I assure you, desktops and laptops as we know them today are not going away any time soon. People will still have to write stuff in ten years, and you know what they're going to want for that? A full-sized keyboard.

Do you really think you need a tower to offer a keyboard... What are you, 12? You don't think they could make a workstation that docks with a mobile? Hardware is way too large and power consuming right now.

Re:It's like North Korea

[Burpmaster]

You're just way too willing to believe that the other guy is an idiot and wrong to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong and should check the facts. Jeez, man, it's right in the summary:

I assumed that the OS was on a ROM chip on the motherboard. To my great annoyance, when I tried to boot to this OS, a message said that it was not installed. It turns out that motherboard comes with an install disk for this GNU/Linux OS - that you can only run from Windows, to install Splashtop on the hard drive.

Duh, don't you get it? The loader is built into the BIOS already. That's why there was already an option to boot Splashtop, which responded with a message saying it was not installed. That loader is there to load and boot a Linux kernel more quickly and efficiently, but Splashtop is stored on another device. Early motherboards had it preinstalled on an integrated SSD. But this guy's motherboard didn't have an SSD built-in, so Splashtop has to be installed on the hard drive.

If his board had flash memory dedicated to it, Splashtop would have been pre-installed. And if for some reason it wasn't, installing Splashtop from Linux would have been as safe as writing to a USB flash drive. It would not involve flashing the BIOS. But even that's not the situation here because there was no integrated SSD in this board and the installer just puts Splashtop on the hard drive.

In short, the fundamental basis of your post is flat out wrong. I repeat, the fundamental basis of your post is flat out wrong. I repeat because you seem to think repetition is convincing. You're totally wrong, and this install process wasn't something that had to be done from Windows.

Re:It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

Duh, don't you get it? The loader is built into the BIOS [splashtop.com] already. That's why there was already an option to boot Splashtop, which responded with a message saying it was not installed. That loader is there to load and boot a Linux kernel more quickly and efficiently, but Splashtop is stored on another device. Early motherboards had it preinstalled on an integrated SSD. But this guy's motherboard didn't have an SSD built-in, so Splashtop has to be installed on the hard drive.

Unless Splashtop uses a static path and assumes all systems are placing it in the exact same place on the exact same hard drive configuration (IDE, SATA, etc), I would assume that anything having to do with a BIOS loading linux distribution would have to at least touch the BIOS to install. Whether or not it's loading into a ROM chip, it's talking to the BIOS, something linux is more than a little bit retarded at.

So I would also go with possibility B in my original post, where I mentioned that creating a consistent imaging, flashing, and customized install solution would be easier with Windows because A) they have a software distribution model and B) Everyone uses Windows. This jackass at least knew what he had to do when he opened that disk. Imagine if it had some wonky linux app. Then everyone but this jackass would have to figure out what the hell it was. Even the EeePC had a windows based loader for its linux installer. If you were the sort of masochist that uses linux, you could figure it out yourself or buy a usb dvdrom. It's that simple. I mean, do you even know if the installer is a mere image writer? If it's not, then it's going to be trickier through Linux.

So no, my post is not wrong. Linux remains a wacky and inconsistent platform that you do not want to distribute software for. Releasing untested software would make anyone nervous, and there's no way to guess when whatever linux distribution whomever is using decides to smash compatibility with the others (new features!). The fact of the matter is if you made a linux app, you would have to maintain it. And then everyone bitches at you to GPL anything you create, so then you have to create a lame little portal with the source code and some sort of open.company.com address. It's just a huge bitch to work with that system and community. I can see why Asus got sick of the Linux community and pulled out.

Wait, how many people even use linux? Like 1% of the desktop market share? Who would waste their time with that outside of the workstation market?

Alternatively, companies that wrote Windows software in the 90's can still enjoy compatibility because backwards compatibility just isn't that hard! Ask Sun.

I can tell you one thing for certain, if your hobbyist OS ever becomes actually secure (not merely make-believe secure), it's going to drop some of the little shred of compatibility it has--and it will be a headache for everyone who ever released complex software on it.

Re:It's like North Korea

[Burpmaster]

Unless Splashtop uses a static path and assumes all systems are placing it in the exact same place on the exact same hard drive configuration (IDE, SATA, etc), I would assume that anything having to do with a BIOS loading linux distribution would have to at least touch the BIOS to install.

You mean the same way standard operating systems don't install to a static path on a fixed device and therefore need to touch the BIOS to install? Oh, except they don't! The BIOS already scans for a bootable OS and it can scan for SplashTop as well.

How hard do you think it is to scan for partitions with a certain ID and load a file off them? It's certainly a whole lot easier than solving the problem by implementing a BIOS routine to hardcode the loading location in a way that will break as soon as someone moves the partition, then programming a Windows-based setup program to get the starting sector of the file and invoke the BIOS routine. Oh, and there's a good chance this installs its files directly to the Windows partition so it doesn't have to go through all the trouble of shrinking the active partition and making a new one. Which would mean a simple defrag would break SplashTop if it works the ridiculous way you think it does!

Whether or not it's loading into a ROM chip, it's talking to the BIOS, something linux is more than a little bit retarded at.

That's a generalization, not a fact. It implies a whole set of instances of Linux being bad at "talking to the BIOS." I challenge you to cite one instance, never mind a whole set, of "talking to the BIOS" that Windows performs without problems and that Linux has trouble doing. I can cite the reverse: getting or setting the wakeup alarm that every modern PC and even laptops have, that you can set from the BIOS screen. Windows just can't do it. The capability certainly isn't built into Windows already, but even beyond that I couldn't even find a third-party program to do it in Windows. In Linux it's trivial. Just read or write /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm. So looks like Windows is pretty retarded at talking to the BIOS.

On my desktop machine with MythTV, my system regularly powers on to record a program, then afterwards if no one is logged on it sets the alarm for the next recording and shuts down. It's been doing this for years and hasn't blown up yet! I can even cite the code in case you want to nitpick it or claim it's not BIOS access. cmos_read_alarm and cmos_set_alarm.

Re:It's like North Korea

[malevolentjelly]

You mean the same way standard operating systems don't install to a static path on a fixed device and therefore need to touch the BIOS to install? Oh, except they don't! The BIOS already scans for a bootable OS and it can scan for SplashTop as well.

If you're suggesting there's absolutely no BIOS or ROM based component to Splashtop, I have no idea what they're marketing it as. I figured they would have installed the core system to some sort of ROM and simply set up a 512 mb persistent storage nest somewhere on the system, not unlike Dyne:Bolic. If it really is just installing a DOS-style bootloader and loading off the hard drive, then it's just going to be another lame linux distribution with a custom-tuned init system. It would probably get out-booted by a well optimized Windows installation.

Who's to say SplashTop has two different installer bases for ROM and Hard Disk anyway? While the hard drive splashtop scenario might work fine in linux if it is as you say it is and it just tosses it onto the hard disk, I think the ROM would still be awkward. Once more, distributing untestable linux code that writes to your BIOS/specialized ROM or SSD might be a bit scary... even my linux-based EeePC wouldn't do that with its default system... and that's a purpose-built Linux.

Oh whoops, and I forgot... nobody uses Desktop Linux exclusively so the effort would be a massive waste of time and money.

That's a generalization, not a fact. It implies a whole set of instances of Linux being bad at "talking to the BIOS." I challenge you to cite one instance, never mind a whole set, of "talking to the BIOS" that Windows performs without problems and that Linux has trouble doing. I can cite the reverse: getting or setting the wakeup alarm that every modern PC and even laptops have, that you can set from the BIOS screen. Windows just can't do it. The capability certainly isn't built into Windows already, but even beyond that I couldn't even find a third-party program to do it in Windows. In Linux it's trivial. Just read or write /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm. So looks like Windows is pretty retarded at talking to the BIOS.

http://www.dennisbabkin.com/php/download.php?what=WOSB

Anyway, if the functionality you need to talk to the BIOS (say it's something non-standard) isn't present, you can distribute a low level application that provides the functionality on Windows. If someone didn't add it to the Linux kernel at some point, then it's over before it started. Linux doesn't have system calls for talking to the kernel.

If you want to expose the underlying system functionality of Windows, then clicking around the GUI isn't the right way to go. You really should open up something like PowerShell and get your hands on the innards of the Windows system. It's a bit different, because Windows is object oriented instead of being text-string oriented, but I think you'll find there is an awful lot more available functionality in the system for a poweruser. Don't worry about grabbing 3rd party tools to expose system functions... just use PowerShell, write a script, schedule it. Only through something like PowerShell will you ever really see how much Windows knows about your hardware, it's really quite impressive. It's a true PC operating system, and it shows.

Windows is much much better after you've used linux for a long time. Take it from me.

On my desktop machine with MythTV, my system regularly powers on to record a program, then afterwards if no one is logged on it sets the alarm for the next recording and shuts down. It's been doing this for years and hasn't blown up yet! I can even cite the code [kernel.org] in case you want to nitpick it or claim it's not BIOS access. cmos_read_alarm and cmos_set_alarm.

And what if I wanted to do something that wasn't hacked into the kernel? There's a lot of functionality in Linux th

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[JohnBailey]

I dream of the day that we see the article titled: "A Windows distro needing Linux to install?!?!"

It doesn't???

Anybody remember how long it takes to partition and format a fresh hard drive on Windows as opposed to the minute or two it takes in Gparted from a liveCD? Doesn't need it, but it makes things a hell of a lot quicker.

time to celebrate

[mhs1973]

congratulations /., you have reached commercial media heaven
to have to publish stories (bs) like this in the summer months
that's well and truly admitting you guys have nothing better to do
just like the 'normal' media

Re:Sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's obviously an asshole by choice & design.

blah

[Anonymous Coward]

"Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?"
Good question

Read the GPL FAQ

[selan]

"If distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?"

The GPL FAQ says no.
I would like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software. Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?
No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.

Re:This is What's Wrong Like Open Sores

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with open source software. It's "Free Software(TM)" that has the sort of zealotry that leads to what you're talking about.

You can tell he's a Free Software(TM) zealot by his usage of the silly term "GNU/Linux". Free Software(TM) zealots are the intolerant ones--open source advocates just think open source is a better way of writing software for mostly practical reasons, not religious reasons.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[Bigjeff5]

Anybody remember how long it takes to partition and format a fresh hard drive on Windows as opposed to the minute or two it takes in Gparted from a liveCD? Doesn't need it, but it makes things a hell of a lot quicker.

Dude, when was the last time you used Windows, back in the 3.1 days? Diskpart is pretty darn fast, but really all the tools these days are. I've used both gparted and diskpart recently, and I'd have a really hard time saying gparted was faster than diskpart. Of course, the reverse is true as well.

Also, I'd prefer a WindowsPE disk for fixing any issues with windows these days. It's basically a 150mb (more or less, depending on what tools you add) bootable version of Vista. It runs almost all windows programs without a hitch, and is very very quick. There's some stuff that linux just can't do for windows.

Keep in mind...

[Junta]

I'm presuming we are talking about ASUS. The company that made a lot of noise about this around the same time they were making noise about Linux based eeepcs. Then Microsoft stepped in, and ASUS's 'enthusiasm' about Linux dramatically reduced, and they started talking up the Windows EeePC and slapped a Windows installer for their linux 'platform' with poor platform management relative to their windows support.

So MS presumably made some questionable deals with ASUS. It sounds like paranoia, but EeePC was a buzz-worthy brand and MS was definitely paying attention to that. If they are talking about that, they might have just touched on this stuff while they were talking with ASUS. If not for EeePC, MS might have ignored ASUS' linux stuff, but that definitely caught MS attention.

Now the question becomes what manufacturer's best support Linux? I have bought ASUS motherboard most recently, to put a standard disto on, and it works great. I used DOS to update the firmware, if I had linux utilities, I'd be happier, but I see no 'good' component-level vendors in this regard, and firmware updates are relatively rare.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[Drinking Bleach]

Dude, when was the last time you used Windows, back in the 3.1 days?

From your comment, it sounds like that was the last time you used Windows. I had to reinstall Windows on someone's computer recently, and with no GParted disc around to quickly reformat it, the install process took two hours just on the formatting process (I presume it runs the Windows equivalent of badblocks before or after the real filesystem format), on a 120GB drive. I should also note that it was Windows XP; not the newest version of Windows I'll grant, but certainly not as old as Windows 3.1.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[JohnBailey]

Dude, when was the last time you used Windows, back in the 3.1 days? Diskpart is pretty darn fast, but really all the tools these days are. I've used both gparted and diskpart recently, and I'd have a really hard time saying gparted was faster than diskpart. Of course, the reverse is true as well.

Dude.. About 2 months ago for a friend. Windows XP. Had to remove the Linux partitions as it was a spare disk I was lending her. I had a boot disk in my tool kit. Prior to using Gparted, I used to let the windows installer take it's own sweet time.. Hours and hours of sweet time in any sizeable disk..

Never heard of Diskpart. Does it run from the XP install disk on a fresh PC with no other OS?

Also, I'd prefer a WindowsPE disk for fixing any issues with windows these days. It's basically a 150mb (more or less, depending on what tools you add) bootable version of Vista. It runs almost all windows programs without a hitch, and is very very quick. There's some stuff that linux just can't do for windows.

To each their own. Although why I'd want to boot a Vista install is beyond me.

Any Linux disk does the most useful fix for Windows though.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[Richard_at_work]

Then there is something seriously wrong with your disk - a full format of a 500GB disk here takes no more than 10 minutes here, on Windows XP.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[wild_berry]

DiskPart is the Windows tool, found in Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management -> Disk Management in XP. It's comparable to PartEd and GPartEd on Linux, but I prefer the GPartEd live CD because of its hardware drivers (now using Kernel 2.6.30) and rsync and dd for imaging.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[JohnBailey]

DiskPart is the Windows tool, found in Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management -> Disk Management in XP. It's comparable to PartEd and GPartEd on Linux, but I prefer the GPartEd live CD because of its hardware drivers (now using Kernel 2.6.30) and rsync and dd for imaging.

I had a look around, and to be honest.. Not particularly impressed. It took more time to actually find out what diskpart was and a rough idea of how to use it than it would take to pop a live CD in the drive and clicky clicky done. I thought CLI stuff was supposed to be the devil's language for Windows users.. I mean how is Windows ever going to be ready for the desktop if it has to use command line stuff?

Thanks for the info. And if I am ever without a live CD in my tool box, I'll give it a go.

Re:Bad Article. Poster didn't bother to RTFA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever tried installing Windows on a Dell Poweredge Server? You have to boot the server with the provided linux based cd, and then install your OS of choice. :-) 'Though this may have changed in the last few years.