I use GNU tools... guess why? They come with Red Hat Linux, the distro I use. Do I give a crap who made the tools? Nope. I'm just glad I know how to use them. Am I glad I can see the source and modify it and distribute it freely, should the ambition strike me? Yes. Its unfair to classify GNU users the way you do, because SOME of us had the GNU tools forced upon us. If that makes me a fungi and/or communist by proxy, well, I guess there's not much I can do about it, really. Though I would be interested to see this fabled Perl/Linux I've heard about. But anyway the point I wanted to get across is that if members of the Linux community flame each other over stupid stuff like whether Linux should be called GNU/Linux or not, we're gonna scare off people that might otherwise use Linux. This may not seem relavent to some Linux users, but it really is. The more people that use Linux, more vendors will get off thier asses and make sure thier products will work with Linux (this applies mostly to hardware, I suppose). That is good for the Linux community in general. So do us all a favor and do something more constructive relating to Linux than flaming your Linux bretheren, because that makes it harder for ALL of us... even the people that hold the same views as you do.
As its been stated earlier, how in the hell are companies supposed to support x number of distributions, and worse yet, when those distributions change thier file hierarchy in the next revision? Some standards would definately be nice. Though it sure is nice to have a choice on which Distro of Linux to use. Some fit individuals' needs better than others. But, there is another issue that should be addressed.
We should be glad these companies support Linux at all! I happen to use RedHat (its not the only distro I've tried, either), and it works great for what I need it to do. The problem _I_ have is hardware compatibility. Some companies, like 3DFX, have contributed code and made great strides in making sure thier hardware works well with linux (and, for the most part, it does). Some companies (cough cough CREATIVE), do not fare quite so well. I think we should worry a little more about hardware support before we start whining about specific distro support for such-and-such program.
*RANT* See, I just bought a Creative Modemblaster v.90 (model 5660), to replace my burnt out Creative Modemblaster Flash II (model 5601, I believe)... One would think my new modem would place nice with Linux... Hell no. This particular modem is a WINMODEM!! Did it say that on the box? No. Did it say "This modem will ONLY work with Windoze"? Nossir. I think the hardware vendors need a kick in the nuts much worse than companies guilty of not supporting every damned distro do. *end RANT*
Though redhatisnotlinux.org has its heart in the right place, I think they are jumping the gun a little bit. I think www.supportmyhardwareinlinux.com would be more appropriate at this time.
In my experience, I'd agree. However, I'm somewhat stumped why no one has brought Linux into this little crashtest... After all, we seem to be talking about popular Desktop OS's. (I'd ask about OS/2 as well, but I have no experience with that one). MacOS 8 and Win98 seem to have about the same reliability when it comes to everyday network users (From experience running my school's network, I know this to be true). But honestly now, how many times have you seen a Linux 2.2.xx OS die? Aside from compiling the kernel wrongly, I haven't ever seen it happen, whereas in both Win98 and MacOS 8, sometimes you don't have to do anything at all to make them crash, much less put them to intensive tasks. I am, however, very excited about MacOS X. It shall be interesting to see how it stacks up in reliability as opposed to the other aformentioned OSes. Whats more, if I can have the prettiness in an OS, like Mac is famous for, and the just plain usefulness of UNIX, I might be tempted to buy a G4 with OS X to compliment my aging P-II/Linux system. However, I won't pour money into a G4 and OS X if a good portion to it isn't Open Sourced. Heck, as long as I can see most of the source, I wouldn't even care if the License wasn't GPL compatible. People deserve to know what they're getting. Providing the source is a fair solution. Now, how they'd regulate a non-GPL type OSS model is another matter, but I think its something that is going to need to be addressed by proprietary companies if they want to remain competitive with true open source projects like Linux. The consumer is not going to be left in the dark and expect to pay for shoddy programs/OSes when they can probably get a more reliable Open Sourced program or OS. I don't want to seem like a OSS zealot (cuz I'm not), but all you have to do is look at Microsoft and Intel and the like, to see that the public is getting royally screwed, and it doesn't benefit anyone but those companies. The only other alternative is to pass legislation that will effectively allow more companies a fighting chance at giving these giants decent competition. Thats the only other way you are going to get low-cost, efficient technology.
Slashdot Mirror
I use GNU tools... guess why? They come with Red Hat Linux, the distro I use. Do I give a crap who made the tools? Nope. I'm just glad I know how to use them. Am I glad I can see the source and modify it and distribute it freely, should the ambition strike me? Yes. Its unfair to classify GNU users the way you do, because SOME of us had the GNU tools forced upon us. If that makes me a fungi and/or communist by proxy, well, I guess there's not much I can do about it, really. Though I would be interested to see this fabled Perl/Linux I've heard about. But anyway the point I wanted to get across is that if members of the Linux community flame each other over stupid stuff like whether Linux should be called GNU/Linux or not, we're gonna scare off people that might otherwise use Linux. This may not seem relavent to some Linux users, but it really is. The more people that use Linux, more vendors will get off thier asses and make sure thier products will work with Linux (this applies mostly to hardware, I suppose). That is good for the Linux community in general. So do us all a favor and do something more constructive relating to Linux than flaming your Linux bretheren, because that makes it harder for ALL of us... even the people that hold the same views as you do.
We should be glad these companies support Linux at all! I happen to use RedHat (its not the only distro I've tried, either), and it works great for what I need it to do. The problem _I_ have is hardware compatibility. Some companies, like 3DFX, have contributed code and made great strides in making sure thier hardware works well with linux (and, for the most part, it does). Some companies (cough cough CREATIVE), do not fare quite so well. I think we should worry a little more about hardware support before we start whining about specific distro support for such-and-such program.
*RANT* See, I just bought a Creative Modemblaster v.90 (model 5660), to replace my burnt out Creative Modemblaster Flash II (model 5601, I believe)... One would think my new modem would place nice with Linux... Hell no. This particular modem is a WINMODEM!! Did it say that on the box? No. Did it say "This modem will ONLY work with Windoze"? Nossir. I think the hardware vendors need a kick in the nuts much worse than companies guilty of not supporting every damned distro do. *end RANT*
Though redhatisnotlinux.org has its heart in the right place, I think they are jumping the gun a little bit. I think www.supportmyhardwareinlinux.com would be more appropriate at this time.
In my experience, I'd agree. However, I'm somewhat stumped why no one has brought Linux into this little crashtest... After all, we seem to be talking about popular Desktop OS's. (I'd ask about OS/2 as well, but I have no experience with that one). MacOS 8 and Win98 seem to have about the same reliability when it comes to everyday network users (From experience running my school's network, I know this to be true). But honestly now, how many times have you seen a Linux 2.2.xx OS die? Aside from compiling the kernel wrongly, I haven't ever seen it happen, whereas in both Win98 and MacOS 8, sometimes you don't have to do anything at all to make them crash, much less put them to intensive tasks. I am, however, very excited about MacOS X. It shall be interesting to see how it stacks up in reliability as opposed to the other aformentioned OSes. Whats more, if I can have the prettiness in an OS, like Mac is famous for, and the just plain usefulness of UNIX, I might be tempted to buy a G4 with OS X to compliment my aging P-II/Linux system. However, I won't pour money into a G4 and OS X if a good portion to it isn't Open Sourced. Heck, as long as I can see most of the source, I wouldn't even care if the License wasn't GPL compatible. People deserve to know what they're getting. Providing the source is a fair solution. Now, how they'd regulate a non-GPL type OSS model is another matter, but I think its something that is going to need to be addressed by proprietary companies if they want to remain competitive with true open source projects like Linux. The consumer is not going to be left in the dark and expect to pay for shoddy programs/OSes when they can probably get a more reliable Open Sourced program or OS. I don't want to seem like a OSS zealot (cuz I'm not), but all you have to do is look at Microsoft and Intel and the like, to see that the public is getting royally screwed, and it doesn't benefit anyone but those companies. The only other alternative is to pass legislation that will effectively allow more companies a fighting chance at giving these giants decent competition. Thats the only other way you are going to get low-cost, efficient technology.