Last night I compiled kernel 2.4.5. (Note: I'm fairly new to Linux) and had to select which components to build into the kernel to support my PCMCIA NIC. Now, the machine was currently supporting the NIC just fine, but when running xconfig, I had to select the driver for my NIC. The default selection was a type of NIC that I've never seen, and I had to go run lsmod and then essentially guess which module was for my NIC (not hard if you know what to look for, but still) and then figure out which config option enabled that driver. So my question is this: why can't the xconfigurator look and find out what driver is being used for my NIC, and select that as the default? Sure, I could change it if I felt like it, but if I had gone with the default options for the PCMCIA NIC, (assuming, as with any version of, say, MacOS, that if the card is currently working, the incremental upgrade shouldn't remove support altogether) I wouldn't have been able to use my NIC at all. It's just plain counterintuitive.
I'm not saying that the average user will recompile his or her kernel, but this is an example of why Linux is not a competitor to Windows.
Honestly, I tend to think that if Microsoft didn't make sure Windows XP could run AOL, they'd have a lot of angry "Joe Consumer" types demanding a refund on Windows. XP can't possibly offer enough new garbage that Joe and Sally AOL-User will be willing to give up "You've Got Mail."
With software no one can sell? They're a software company. They make money, and employ people, based on being able to sell software. It isn't possible to make money selling free software - the pricetag just doesn't allow for much of a profit margin. Why do SUN and IBM support the GPL? Because they're hardware companies. Software is trivial to them.
Now for all of you bashing Intellectual property, think about this one. Do you make a living programming? You won't without IP. How many people is VA Linux going to lay off? You can only make money (and this includes making a living programming, not big greedy monsters like Big Bad Bill) so long as you can make people pay you for your work. If your work is available for free, who would pay you for it? ESR seems to have answers to this, but they're really the same reason that SUN and IBM support OSS: they don't care about software, they make hardware. ESR also concedes that OSS is not right for every project.
Slashdot Mirror
Last night I compiled kernel 2.4.5. (Note: I'm fairly new to Linux) and had to select which components to build into the kernel to support my PCMCIA NIC. Now, the machine was currently supporting the NIC just fine, but when running xconfig, I had to select the driver for my NIC. The default selection was a type of NIC that I've never seen, and I had to go run lsmod and then essentially guess which module was for my NIC (not hard if you know what to look for, but still) and then figure out which config option enabled that driver. So my question is this: why can't the xconfigurator look and find out what driver is being used for my NIC, and select that as the default? Sure, I could change it if I felt like it, but if I had gone with the default options for the PCMCIA NIC, (assuming, as with any version of, say, MacOS, that if the card is currently working, the incremental upgrade shouldn't remove support altogether) I wouldn't have been able to use my NIC at all. It's just plain counterintuitive. I'm not saying that the average user will recompile his or her kernel, but this is an example of why Linux is not a competitor to Windows.
Honestly, I tend to think that if Microsoft didn't make sure Windows XP could run AOL, they'd have a lot of angry "Joe Consumer" types demanding a refund on Windows. XP can't possibly offer enough new garbage that Joe and Sally AOL-User will be willing to give up "You've Got Mail."
With software no one can sell? They're a software company. They make money, and employ people, based on being able to sell software. It isn't possible to make money selling free software - the pricetag just doesn't allow for much of a profit margin. Why do SUN and IBM support the GPL? Because they're hardware companies. Software is trivial to them. Now for all of you bashing Intellectual property, think about this one. Do you make a living programming? You won't without IP. How many people is VA Linux going to lay off? You can only make money (and this includes making a living programming, not big greedy monsters like Big Bad Bill) so long as you can make people pay you for your work. If your work is available for free, who would pay you for it? ESR seems to have answers to this, but they're really the same reason that SUN and IBM support OSS: they don't care about software, they make hardware. ESR also concedes that OSS is not right for every project.