Or perhaps the person actually has no children and has never actually even investigated said software and was speaking out the side of his face and hoping not to get caught?
What would motivate such a person to make the post at all?
very possible explanation right off the top of my head: he could just not use Linux.
Ok, so you believe that a skilled software engineer and Apple employee with experience in SVN and CVS, PHP and Python who is unfamiliar with Linux, yet makes detailed false claims about it on a tech website, is just misinformed?
Occam's razor's looking a bit blunt today, don't you think?
The guy says he has skills including;
Programming: CVS, SVN, C++,.NET (VB.NET/C#), Java, VB6, JScript, XML, X/HTML, PHP, Python, Visual Studio, XCode, some Objective-C, some PLC exp. Are you seriously suggesting someone with that experience could claim Linux had no "typing training, doodling software, trivia games, and all that stuff" out of ignorance?
Except that all the hardware that people need drivers for seem to not be in the scope
These guys are kernel devs. There are different projects for other hardware.
If Lexmark takes it's printer specs to the CUPS guys, they'll have their printers supported. If Canon takes their scanner specs to the SANE guys, they'll have their scanner supported.
That option has always been there. The kernel guys are just the ones out there promoting the support this time.
The real problem people are running into here is Slashdot's summary doesn't say that, but TFA does. Of course, who reads TFA?
OK, fine. So what use are these 300 developers then?
They are there to create an opportunity for hardware builders to have free drivers made for them.
The question you should be asking is; "When there's an opportunity for your hardware to be supported on Linux for free, why isn't my [Device] supported?"
We see a lot of apologists here saying it's hard for manufacturers to support Linux as a platform. There's no excuse now - just provide specs, and your device will be supported at no cost to you.
Only six manufacturers have come forward. Now you know who to blame if your board/storage device etc doesn't work.
What sort of clown mods this "Insightful"? It's just whiny astroturf.
What a pompous tagline...."many developers, few challenges"
TFA says it really clearly. They have 300 developers lined up and 6 devices submitted for driver development.
then a disclaimer that they can't be bothered to work on the MAJOR printer driver issue (*cough--Lexmark--cough*) because printing takes place "in userspace"?
These are KERNEL driver developers. A completely different skillset. They say that very clearly on the wiki, and even provide a link to the printer driver project for the Google-challenged.
It'll be XP Crippled, and only work on these wacky laptops
No, I don't think so.
Microsoft are well aware of the threat from other similar low-priced computers. Sales of Asus' Eee PC show there's a big market there that may undermine Microsoft's full-sized products.
They may initially target the OLPC, but their eye will be on extinguishing Linux on the commercial vendors' machines.
This guy better watch out for Steve "The Chair" Ballmer.
Actually, as soon as Ballmer heard, he despatched one of Microsoft's Special Ops "negotiators" in a private jet to Pretoria.
Fortunately for the Africans, the "negotiator" bailed out halfway across the South Atlantic ocean. In a statement released later he said;
The flight had been going well until I dozed off for a minute or two, then woke to see blue screens on the panel in front of me. By the time I realised it was just the sky, I had my chute on and was halfway out the escape hatch...
I know you MS drones will keep modding this tired old shit up, but it's not even close to being true.
Windows needs its startup and parts of its kernel to be obfuscated to prevent piracy. That obscurity is fertile ground for malware.
Linux is not a monoculture. It would be next to impossible to infect a majority of Linux machines.
Linux (and other Unixes) are designed to be used by multiple users with separation between users, and rare need for superuser privs. That makes it relatively easy to clean up non-root infestations (move data, wipe infected user, create new login)
The open source nature of the Linux community means any virus vector will be patched MUCH faster than Windows.
There's plenty more reasons why Linux would be more secure. If you had a clue, you could add a few of your own to my list.
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't you ever heard of employees who denigrate a competitor's products?
I doubt we'll agree on this, so let's be fair and split the difference. 50% astroturfer and 50% psycho?.
What would motivate such a person to make the post at all?
Ok, so you believe that a skilled software engineer and Apple employee with experience in SVN and CVS, PHP and Python who is unfamiliar with Linux, yet makes detailed false claims about it on a tech website, is just misinformed?
Occam's razor's looking a bit blunt today, don't you think?
I've got a nice bridge over here. Going cheap...
Good point.
He does work for Apple, so make that "Tim Cook's memos as misinformation", instead of Bill Hilf's.
It's still astroturf though.
He's not misinformed, unless you consider Bill Hilf's memos as misinformation.
Have you imagined a Beowulf cluster of them already?
These guys are kernel devs. There are different projects for other hardware.
If Lexmark takes it's printer specs to the CUPS guys, they'll have their printers supported. If Canon takes their scanner specs to the SANE guys, they'll have their scanner supported.
That option has always been there. The kernel guys are just the ones out there promoting the support this time.
The real problem people are running into here is Slashdot's summary doesn't say that, but TFA does. Of course, who reads TFA?
This hasn't been set up for Joe User.
It's been set up so that manufacturers can easily have their hardware supported.
Joe gets the benefit later, when (s)he buys supported hardware.
Trouble is, that account of yours like a broken-down Lada Samara in a yacht club car park, and about as valuable.
They are there to create an opportunity for hardware builders to have free drivers made for them.
The question you should be asking is; "When there's an opportunity for your hardware to be supported on Linux for free, why isn't my [Device] supported?"
We see a lot of apologists here saying it's hard for manufacturers to support Linux as a platform. There's no excuse now - just provide specs, and your device will be supported at no cost to you.
Only six manufacturers have come forward. Now you know who to blame if your board/storage device etc doesn't work.
What a pompous tagline...."many developers, few challenges"
TFA says it really clearly. They have 300 developers lined up and 6 devices submitted for driver development.
then a disclaimer that they can't be bothered to work on the MAJOR printer driver issue (*cough--Lexmark--cough*) because printing takes place "in userspace"?
These are KERNEL driver developers. A completely different skillset. They say that very clearly on the wiki, and even provide a link to the printer driver project for the Google-challenged.
Exactly.
Enforcer types from dystopias, just like the GPP said.
No, I don't think so.
Microsoft are well aware of the threat from other similar low-priced computers. Sales of Asus' Eee PC show there's a big market there that may undermine Microsoft's full-sized products.
They may initially target the OLPC, but their eye will be on extinguishing Linux on the commercial vendors' machines.
Relax. We all know it's just Spanish for "Amiga".
That's not relevant.
The business isn't selling the software their employee is developing.
Actually, as soon as Ballmer heard, he despatched one of Microsoft's Special Ops "negotiators" in a private jet to Pretoria.
Fortunately for the Africans, the "negotiator" bailed out halfway across the South Atlantic ocean. In a statement released later he said;
The flight had been going well until I dozed off for a minute or two, then woke to see blue screens on the panel in front of me. By the time I realised it was just the sky, I had my chute on and was halfway out the escape hatch...It gives you the chance to compare your government with one which takes a common-sense approach to document formats.
You can cry now, if you want to.
What can't you do with it?
Why?
Make that two.
I signed on to Steam, despite misgivings about any form of product activation. This has proved I was right to be sceptical.
The CinePaint extensions were to the original codebase, not to GEGL.
Anyone who needed them could use CinePaint. GEGL was intended to be useful for more than just Gimp.
Why the animosity anyway?
- Windows needs its startup and parts of its kernel to be obfuscated to prevent piracy. That obscurity is fertile ground for malware.
-
Linux is not a monoculture. It would be next to impossible to infect a majority of Linux machines.
-
Linux (and other Unixes) are designed to be used by multiple users with separation between users, and rare need for superuser privs. That makes it relatively easy to clean up non-root infestations (move data, wipe infected user, create new login)
-
The open source nature of the Linux community means any virus vector will be patched MUCH faster than Windows.
There's plenty more reasons why Linux would be more secure. If you had a clue, you could add a few of your own to my list.Because it doesn't work.
Quokkas with "Hello Kitty" spacesuits?