No it's ok, I read what you wrote, I can see you have changed your mind from "I gave a factual answer" - to a question that clearly does not have a binary answer - to "I was just joking". Whether you were being stupid or acting stupid doesn't really matter.
In any case the point from where I picked up the conversation still stands that Linux is an unattractive prospect for most developers and most users and to change that requires innovation, this is how all new platforms disrupt the status quo.
Again, I never said it ran well, or that recent versions ran. Hell, I looked, saw a couple "gold" ratings, and said "yup, it runs", that's good enough for a yes.
Of course, all of this ignores that the reality of this thread is that I answered "yes" to "can I run AutoCAD on Linux?" That is a factual answer and I never insinuated that it was a good idea.
Ok but surely you can see that is a pretty disingenuous answer can't you? I'll grant you the question is probably too open-ended but look at the link you posted, the most recent version it says runs is 3 years old and the most recent version it says runs better than "garbage" is from 7 years ago.
Based on that data no reasonable person is going respond with an unequivocal "yes" to that question, given there are some serious caveats and limitations.
I think you missed the second half of my sentence there, which says exactly that. That's not making the users switch, though.
Read it instead as providing the option for users to switch, it is exactly the same amount of effort in porting the application. Or are you saying this is not about existing users and purely about new users?
Well, if their customers are looking to switch it's because they've found some other tool or application on the new platform that they are wanting to use
And this new tool obviously doesn't work on the existing platform, so the question is who feels more threatened? The user is likely to put pressure on both vendors and see who caves first.
In short, yes, you may have my money already, but will you get my money for the next version?
Well the competition is a long way from viable so the question is whether the "new tool or application" on Linux is not available on Windows/OSX with no viable alternative as well?
You can't really say whether what they are doing is right or wrong without knowing whether this supposed demand (which I'm not even sure there is much of) exists, whether it is driven by new or existing users, what is the reason these users want to use Linux and whether there are enough to form a viable market for a Linux version. Based on the current actions of almost all the major vendors it would seem the values here do not add up to a viable business case.
Even if you take major fierce competitors with extremely expensive applications - here's just one example - like Creo, Solidworks and Inventor you will find that none of them do a version other than for Windows, this really does suggest there is no viable market for it, if there is then why is nobody going after it? In fact PTC even dropped Linux support for Pro/Engineer because there were so few users it wasn't even worth them maintaining that version.
"It might be the Linux community's fault. They have not made the platform an attractive choice for Autodesk."
You introduced this loop of the need to get applications as the way to get users, whereas I think he's right that the development community needs to make it an attractive platform for developers in some way. Maybe that means ease of porting applications or some incentive to grow the userbase despite a lack of major application vendors offering their products for it.
As for the innovation offered by Linux, well, it's a kernel; it's up to the individual distros to offer some form of innovative user experience.
Yes well in the context of this discussion "Linux" in comparison to "Windows" means "desktop Linux distribution".
Ok well relatively few of their target users use Linux.
In Adobe's case, thousands of users have participated in threads on Adobe's own forums, asking for a Linux version
Well it's a cost-benefit analysis, if there are indeed thousands of users that aren't existing Windows/OSX customers then maybe it is worth it. Seems as though it isn't.
Who says they have to make their users switch?
Nobody, but obviously the reason for this supposed demand is from users wanting to use a Linux version rather than a Windows/OSX version so how does that benefit the vendors?
If they've got a large number of users asking them to support a platform, they won't have to expend any effort making any one switch
Targeting/porting to another platform is a huge expense! What do they get from their existing customers in return for this? Or are you suggesting there is a significant amount of people who are not currently users that will become users if they support that platform?
But to insinuate that they'd have to make anyone switch is just silly.
I didn't, but obviously some of their customers will switch from one platform to the other. What do these companies get out of that?
See, when you say "in the limited cases I used it" did you not find it irritating as hell and disable it like I did?
I only really used it for dropping note, document or gallery apps over emails to copy things out of.
As for productivity... it's a tablet OS, it's consumptive, not productive. It's (normally) missing a keyboard so you can actually do some entry without covering the thing you're entering into or reading from, (always missing) a mouse so you can actually copy and paste with some accuracy and speed, and (always missing) a second discreet screen so the OS can't misjudge another futile attempt to change the sub-page for an attempt to change apps entirely.
Well I guess they don't need the feature then since the status quo is what it is and is never to be changed. There are hundreds of choices for keyboard covers for tablets and actually you can quite happily plug a USB mouse into an Android tablet and it will work. Not to mention multiple windows and productivity on computers came along decades before multiple screens became even moderately common.
The Surface is a very different device
Yes, all I said is the feature is useful on the Surface and would also be useful on Android.
Most people just want to read their mail, browse the internet and write and send CVs, and for that Linux is perfect.
If that's actually all you want to do then it doesn't matter what operating system you use so people will just use the incumbent, any system is perfect for that, even a tablet with a bluetooth keyboard is perfect for that.
How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? Have more applications. How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? ***ERROR: Infinite loop detected.
By that logic, nothing new should ever be successful.
No you're just not being imaginative enough. You think Apple looked at the tablet market and thought "well we could make a tablet but nobody would make applications for it because it doesn't have any users"? No they created an innovative product that appealed to end users, people started using it and developers started developing for it. People don't have to switch to Linux in one go, if Linux can offer innovation such that people justify buying a Linux system in addition to their existing computer then that will be enough for it to gradually gain users and applications. The problem is it offers no such innovation.
It's not the fault of the Linux community that Autodesk does not offer a native version.
Well it's a chicken-and-egg problem: Why would Autodesk or Adobe or Dassault or whoever go to the effort of porting to a platform that has no users? And what would they get out of expending all that effort of getting their users switching from Windows to Linux? The desktop Linux community needs to make Linux a compelling alternative so it gets users, it needs to be innovative, a leader rather than a follower. People developed for the iPhone/Android platforms because they were a disruptive market-changer from the Blackberry/Palm/Windows smartphone incumbents, if they had copied the incumbents nobody would have been interested.
The desktop Linux community needs to innovate and provide users some really compelling thing that draws people away from Windows and OSX, even monumental mistakes (Window Me, Windows Vista, Windows 8 or OSX dropping support for semi-recent hardware) that have been almost universally panned, have not driven people to Linux so it is clear that hoping for Microsoft and/or Apple to fail for desktop Linux to succeed isn't going to happen.
Obviously - given the amount of stuffing around and warnings you apparently get when enabling it - this feature is not meant to be used yet, but as far as it goes what is different to say Samsung's implementation? I've seen the Samsung one and it seems to work fine (in the limited cases I used it) so is there some differentiating feature here? Like APIs for apps to share resources or something? Aside from the vendor-specific aspect of Samsung's one of course.
Having also used multi-windowing on an x86 Surface (pretty sure the ARM ones had it too) with Windows 8.1 I think this is going to be a huge feature in terms of productivity for Android if they can standardize it on the platform, having the apps side-by-side when you are using multiple programs is so much better than having to switch between them.
There's no law that says they can't pad the variable length input to fixed length
I'm not sure you quite understand the problem, it's not the input length, it is the encoding of each of the characters. So are you suggesting turning all single-byte encoded characters into multi-byte encoding of some arbitrary maximum length? If you can already identify the problem at this level then you would just do that in the parser that is truncating the string.
If all you say is true then what is your reasoning for why Linux adoption is still in the low-single-digit percentage?
Because if what he says is true then the operating system doesn't matter at all. So long as you can turn on your computer and hit the button for the web browser you'd be set, you can do that on Windows and OSX already on your desktop so there's still no reason to switch to Linux and that's why its marketshare remains low.
If users only care about the web browser then what's the point of any of these Linux distros?
It wouldn't be a parsing bug if the parser sanitized its input.
And what exactly do you mean by 'sanitized its input' in this case? Since we're talking about truncating a string of non-latin character sets with variable-length values for the codepoints the problem is with the parser not correctly handling this and assuming fixed length codepoint values. Changing the input is most definitely the wrong way to handle a bug like this.
That's talking about the Windows' builtin services don't run OpenSSL at all, they use their own SSL/TLS implementation, the article you linked even says that. However you can run OpenSSL on Windows and if you ran a version that had the heartbleed vulnerability it is just as exploitable on Windows as on Linux.
Support for cutting edge technology is usually better in Windows but support for ancient technology is usually better in Linux, that said my 10 year old desktop is fully supported in Windows 8.1. I suppose that is really the problem here though, you buy a new laptop with new technology and you want to use it, not wait until somebody has written a Linux driver for it.
You're probably quite right actually, I was thinking in terms of the quality of the existing drivers - the NV and AMD ones seem to have gotten better as have the open source versions of them. But as far as breadth of hardware support goes yes the landscape has expanded and you're likely right that Linux may not have kept up.
Linux driver support definitely is a bit crappier, but it's a lot better than it was even say 5 years ago. Linux's biggest problem on the desktop is the lack of application support, the basics are there and there are a lot of admin/dev/poweruser tools but for workstation users it's pretty slim pickings. Most of the mainstream vendors don't provide Linux support for their biggest offerings - which are more often than not the industry standard - and that is the real issue.
Even if you don't have UI consistency that doesn't really matter once you have opened your programs because you aren't really futzing around in the OS much, you're working in the programs that you need to run. So in that regard from a UI perspective pretty much any Linux distro should be fine and even the Windows 7 to 8 switch isn't really a big deal, your programs still look the same. Linux vendors need to forget fiddling with the UI and all the OS shit that doesn't matter and focus on getting support from major vendors so the OS can do what an operating system's primary purpose is: Run the programs the user wants to run.
The only thing that windows does better there in windows 8 is video drivers... where gamers have gotten used to hard locks until they've tried three different versions of the driver.
Windows doesn't do drivers, the hardware manufacturer writes the drivers. If the driver is crashing that is the responsibility of the vendor.
Oh, but that one OpenSSL bug that was there for so long
What does that have to do with anything? OpenSSL runs on Windows too, heartbleed could be exploited on the Windows platform as well.
Because the concept of "choice" is anathema to UI designers circa 2015.
I'm pretty sure Windows 10 still allows changing of icon themes as well as the UI theme just as previous versions have, if they didn't want you to have choice these options would be removed, yet they remain.
But if it runs Android apps then why would developers write for Firefox and alienate Android users when they could just write for Android and have it run on Firefox OS anyway?
Having an application library just reduces the burden on the "killer feature", it doesn't have to be so great that people abandon the Android or iOS application library but that feature still needs to be good enough to drive adoption.
3D models are generally stored uncompressed, but they actually compress really well, as in a 3ds max file can go from a 16MB file to less than a MB depending on its content.
Very often the high detail model is created then a low detail mesh is generated from that artist model with a corresponding normal map for the detail. This results in a much smaller file so with the original assets in there I would certainly expect the archive to be huge.
Slashdot Mirror
No it's ok, I read what you wrote, I can see you have changed your mind from "I gave a factual answer" - to a question that clearly does not have a binary answer - to "I was just joking". Whether you were being stupid or acting stupid doesn't really matter.
In any case the point from where I picked up the conversation still stands that Linux is an unattractive prospect for most developers and most users and to change that requires innovation, this is how all new platforms disrupt the status quo.
reinvent the tiling wm?
No they are implementing the existing tiling window manager concept on Android, which doesn't currently have such a thing.
Again, I never said it ran well, or that recent versions ran. Hell, I looked, saw a couple "gold" ratings, and said "yup, it runs", that's good enough for a yes.
Well that speaks volumes I suppose.
Of course, all of this ignores that the reality of this thread is that I answered "yes" to "can I run AutoCAD on Linux?" That is a factual answer and I never insinuated that it was a good idea.
Ok but surely you can see that is a pretty disingenuous answer can't you? I'll grant you the question is probably too open-ended but look at the link you posted, the most recent version it says runs is 3 years old and the most recent version it says runs better than "garbage" is from 7 years ago.
Based on that data no reasonable person is going respond with an unequivocal "yes" to that question, given there are some serious caveats and limitations.
I think you missed the second half of my sentence there, which says exactly that. That's not making the users switch, though.
Read it instead as providing the option for users to switch, it is exactly the same amount of effort in porting the application. Or are you saying this is not about existing users and purely about new users?
Well, if their customers are looking to switch it's because they've found some other tool or application on the new platform that they are wanting to use
And this new tool obviously doesn't work on the existing platform, so the question is who feels more threatened? The user is likely to put pressure on both vendors and see who caves first.
In short, yes, you may have my money already, but will you get my money for the next version?
Well the competition is a long way from viable so the question is whether the "new tool or application" on Linux is not available on Windows/OSX with no viable alternative as well?
You can't really say whether what they are doing is right or wrong without knowing whether this supposed demand (which I'm not even sure there is much of) exists, whether it is driven by new or existing users, what is the reason these users want to use Linux and whether there are enough to form a viable market for a Linux version. Based on the current actions of almost all the major vendors it would seem the values here do not add up to a viable business case.
Even if you take major fierce competitors with extremely expensive applications - here's just one example - like Creo, Solidworks and Inventor you will find that none of them do a version other than for Windows, this really does suggest there is no viable market for it, if there is then why is nobody going after it? In fact PTC even dropped Linux support for Pro/Engineer because there were so few users it wasn't even worth them maintaining that version.
You basically just made the same point I was making. It is the person I was replying to who wasn't being imaginative enough.
Well no, the person you were replying to said:
"It might be the Linux community's fault. They have not made the platform an attractive choice for Autodesk."
You introduced this loop of the need to get applications as the way to get users, whereas I think he's right that the development community needs to make it an attractive platform for developers in some way. Maybe that means ease of porting applications or some incentive to grow the userbase despite a lack of major application vendors offering their products for it.
As for the innovation offered by Linux, well, it's a kernel; it's up to the individual distros to offer some form of innovative user experience.
Yes well in the context of this discussion "Linux" in comparison to "Windows" means "desktop Linux distribution".
I wouldn't say that desktop Linux has no users.
Ok well relatively few of their target users use Linux.
In Adobe's case, thousands of users have participated in threads on Adobe's own forums, asking for a Linux version
Well it's a cost-benefit analysis, if there are indeed thousands of users that aren't existing Windows/OSX customers then maybe it is worth it. Seems as though it isn't.
Who says they have to make their users switch?
Nobody, but obviously the reason for this supposed demand is from users wanting to use a Linux version rather than a Windows/OSX version so how does that benefit the vendors?
If they've got a large number of users asking them to support a platform, they won't have to expend any effort making any one switch
Targeting/porting to another platform is a huge expense! What do they get from their existing customers in return for this? Or are you suggesting there is a significant amount of people who are not currently users that will become users if they support that platform?
But to insinuate that they'd have to make anyone switch is just silly.
I didn't, but obviously some of their customers will switch from one platform to the other. What do these companies get out of that?
See, when you say "in the limited cases I used it" did you not find it irritating as hell and disable it like I did?
I only really used it for dropping note, document or gallery apps over emails to copy things out of.
As for productivity... it's a tablet OS, it's consumptive, not productive. It's (normally) missing a keyboard so you can actually do some entry without covering the thing you're entering into or reading from, (always missing) a mouse so you can actually copy and paste with some accuracy and speed, and (always missing) a second discreet screen so the OS can't misjudge another futile attempt to change the sub-page for an attempt to change apps entirely.
Well I guess they don't need the feature then since the status quo is what it is and is never to be changed. There are hundreds of choices for keyboard covers for tablets and actually you can quite happily plug a USB mouse into an Android tablet and it will work. Not to mention multiple windows and productivity on computers came along decades before multiple screens became even moderately common.
The Surface is a very different device
Yes, all I said is the feature is useful on the Surface and would also be useful on Android.
Most people just want to read their mail, browse the internet and write and send CVs, and for that Linux is perfect.
If that's actually all you want to do then it doesn't matter what operating system you use so people will just use the incumbent, any system is perfect for that, even a tablet with a bluetooth keyboard is perfect for that.
How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? Have more applications. How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? ***ERROR: Infinite loop detected.
By that logic, nothing new should ever be successful.
No you're just not being imaginative enough. You think Apple looked at the tablet market and thought "well we could make a tablet but nobody would make applications for it because it doesn't have any users"? No they created an innovative product that appealed to end users, people started using it and developers started developing for it. People don't have to switch to Linux in one go, if Linux can offer innovation such that people justify buying a Linux system in addition to their existing computer then that will be enough for it to gradually gain users and applications. The problem is it offers no such innovation.
It's not the fault of the Linux community that Autodesk does not offer a native version.
Well it's a chicken-and-egg problem: Why would Autodesk or Adobe or Dassault or whoever go to the effort of porting to a platform that has no users? And what would they get out of expending all that effort of getting their users switching from Windows to Linux? The desktop Linux community needs to make Linux a compelling alternative so it gets users, it needs to be innovative, a leader rather than a follower. People developed for the iPhone/Android platforms because they were a disruptive market-changer from the Blackberry/Palm/Windows smartphone incumbents, if they had copied the incumbents nobody would have been interested.
The desktop Linux community needs to innovate and provide users some really compelling thing that draws people away from Windows and OSX, even monumental mistakes (Window Me, Windows Vista, Windows 8 or OSX dropping support for semi-recent hardware) that have been almost universally panned, have not driven people to Linux so it is clear that hoping for Microsoft and/or Apple to fail for desktop Linux to succeed isn't going to happen.
Speaking of marketing, what's with this "RTM" term?
RTM is Release To Manufacturing.
Why not just use "FS", as in For Sale.
Because it's Release To Manufacturing, not For Sale.
Obviously - given the amount of stuffing around and warnings you apparently get when enabling it - this feature is not meant to be used yet, but as far as it goes what is different to say Samsung's implementation? I've seen the Samsung one and it seems to work fine (in the limited cases I used it) so is there some differentiating feature here? Like APIs for apps to share resources or something? Aside from the vendor-specific aspect of Samsung's one of course.
Having also used multi-windowing on an x86 Surface (pretty sure the ARM ones had it too) with Windows 8.1 I think this is going to be a huge feature in terms of productivity for Android if they can standardize it on the platform, having the apps side-by-side when you are using multiple programs is so much better than having to switch between them.
OEMs charge money to preinstall software (trial-ware, most of it). They can do that on Windows, but not on Linux.
You can't preinstall software on Linux? Why not? What would stop them from preinstalling the trial of McAfee or avast! or AVG linux trial products?
There's no law that says they can't pad the variable length input to fixed length
I'm not sure you quite understand the problem, it's not the input length, it is the encoding of each of the characters. So are you suggesting turning all single-byte encoded characters into multi-byte encoding of some arbitrary maximum length? If you can already identify the problem at this level then you would just do that in the parser that is truncating the string.
If all you say is true then what is your reasoning for why Linux adoption is still in the low-single-digit percentage?
Because if what he says is true then the operating system doesn't matter at all. So long as you can turn on your computer and hit the button for the web browser you'd be set, you can do that on Windows and OSX already on your desktop so there's still no reason to switch to Linux and that's why its marketshare remains low.
If users only care about the web browser then what's the point of any of these Linux distros?
It wouldn't be a parsing bug if the parser sanitized its input.
And what exactly do you mean by 'sanitized its input' in this case? Since we're talking about truncating a string of non-latin character sets with variable-length values for the codepoints the problem is with the parser not correctly handling this and assuming fixed length codepoint values. Changing the input is most definitely the wrong way to handle a bug like this.
That's actually incorrect. Windows ran a customized openssl that is not vulnerable. http://blogs.microsoft.com/cyb...
That's talking about the Windows' builtin services don't run OpenSSL at all, they use their own SSL/TLS implementation, the article you linked even says that. However you can run OpenSSL on Windows and if you ran a version that had the heartbleed vulnerability it is just as exploitable on Windows as on Linux.
Support for cutting edge technology is usually better in Windows but support for ancient technology is usually better in Linux, that said my 10 year old desktop is fully supported in Windows 8.1. I suppose that is really the problem here though, you buy a new laptop with new technology and you want to use it, not wait until somebody has written a Linux driver for it.
You're probably quite right actually, I was thinking in terms of the quality of the existing drivers - the NV and AMD ones seem to have gotten better as have the open source versions of them. But as far as breadth of hardware support goes yes the landscape has expanded and you're likely right that Linux may not have kept up.
Linux driver support definitely is a bit crappier, but it's a lot better than it was even say 5 years ago. Linux's biggest problem on the desktop is the lack of application support, the basics are there and there are a lot of admin/dev/poweruser tools but for workstation users it's pretty slim pickings. Most of the mainstream vendors don't provide Linux support for their biggest offerings - which are more often than not the industry standard - and that is the real issue.
Even if you don't have UI consistency that doesn't really matter once you have opened your programs because you aren't really futzing around in the OS much, you're working in the programs that you need to run. So in that regard from a UI perspective pretty much any Linux distro should be fine and even the Windows 7 to 8 switch isn't really a big deal, your programs still look the same. Linux vendors need to forget fiddling with the UI and all the OS shit that doesn't matter and focus on getting support from major vendors so the OS can do what an operating system's primary purpose is: Run the programs the user wants to run.
The only thing that windows does better there in windows 8 is video drivers... where gamers have gotten used to hard locks until they've tried three different versions of the driver.
Windows doesn't do drivers, the hardware manufacturer writes the drivers. If the driver is crashing that is the responsibility of the vendor.
Oh, but that one OpenSSL bug that was there for so long
What does that have to do with anything? OpenSSL runs on Windows too, heartbleed could be exploited on the Windows platform as well.
Because the concept of "choice" is anathema to UI designers circa 2015.
I'm pretty sure Windows 10 still allows changing of icon themes as well as the UI theme just as previous versions have, if they didn't want you to have choice these options would be removed, yet they remain.
there's no reason to write firefox apps NOW.
But if it runs Android apps then why would developers write for Firefox and alienate Android users when they could just write for Android and have it run on Firefox OS anyway?
Having an application library just reduces the burden on the "killer feature", it doesn't have to be so great that people abandon the Android or iOS application library but that feature still needs to be good enough to drive adoption.
3D models are generally stored uncompressed, but they actually compress really well, as in a 3ds max file can go from a 16MB file to less than a MB depending on its content.
Very often the high detail model is created then a low detail mesh is generated from that artist model with a corresponding normal map for the detail. This results in a much smaller file so with the original assets in there I would certainly expect the archive to be huge.