Sorry I ranted. It's more a problem with the XFree side of Linux. Unfortunately, I don't think they can keep up with the plethora of hardware out there, and there isn't an alternative (that I know of). Every version of Linux I've ever seen runs the same XFree. I agree with you on the "Until Linux becomes a major player on the desktop" part, they will never get there without a good standard API toolkit and a much more robust XFree.
I have three machines. I've put various versions of windows on all of them with no problems, but Linux will only run in text mode on them (no XFree drivers). That includes VPC running on these machine with lunix on the VPC. XFree has always had a problem keeping up with the times. If you know an alternative, other than writing my own driver, please let me know.
The way I look at it is, with the lack of constantly revising the kernel, maybe now they will come out with some standards, an API toolkit, and support for hardware made in the last five years. Yes, that's not completely true about the hardware, but have you tried to install any version of Linux on a new machine and had all the devices work right out of the box.
I have access to a large variety of laptops, most of them being Toshiba models, with some Dell, Hitachi, and Compaqs. I gave up after trying to install on 12 different models of laptops. All of them had some problem with graphics, sound, chipsets, controllers, or network interfaces. The manufacturers refer you to the parts makers, the parts makers refer you to XFree or some other linux group, and the linux groups refer you to the manufacturers. It's seems like noone cares if it doesn't work on your machine, you should get a different machine. I've actually been told to write my own drivers if I wanted it to work. Hmmm, Microsoft has never asked me to write drivers before, but of course, they actually work with the parts makers and equipment manufacturers.
These are perfectly legal tactics and systems. The honeypots I've heard about were more like systems intentionally and obviously left open for hackers, viruses, and worms. It's more of a tactic of using a gill net to catch fish rather than a fishing pole. They want to see what's out there for research purposes, not entrapment ones. Although, I would support using them for entrapment.
Because.NET is M$'s way of getting around all the other problems of not being in control. It's all about control. It serves to resolve all of their multiple programming language problems (C, C++, Basic, Java++) and their VM/Java woes in one shot. I work for a Microsoft workshop that writes software and the impression I'm getting is that if you don't use active directory and.NET, then you will become the red headed stepchild and be cut-off.
It's just M$ trying to force people to buy the latest and greatest trick that they have been pulling for years.
Thanks for the tip on the fan silencers. I didn't know they existed. Now I just have to figure out how to adapt them to my case without it looking like something the Borg made. I currently have a 3 fan power supply, a snorkle fan, 2 fans in the front, 2 on the side, and 2 on the back, not to mention the northbridge and southbridge fans and the 90x38 Delta on the processor. Do you think that's too much? The lights in the room dim a little when I turn the PC on.
I think the public disclosure part is optional. Let's use Coke for example. Their recipe is still a secret and is patented. They are not about to disclose the formula to help anyone come up with a candy bar that will complement the taste of the drink.
If I came up with a way to convert matter to energy and energy to matter, while maintaining its original configuration and states, I would definitely patent it. I would probably state to some scientific magazines the basic principles, but not the secret for publicity. That way I could get some investors, start a business, produce a product, and do more research. NOT for the common good of mankind, but for the all mighty Bling-Bling.
Forcing users to download patches could be a major mistake. We have to thuroughly test patches to make sure they work with our internal software. Many of the changes they put in these HotFixes and Service Packs breaks our software written to Microsoft's own specs. I know of 2 service pack, 1 recommended update, and 2 critical updates that we are still warned not to use or the internal software will not run. Our software engineers cannot keep up to the changes. We are having to divert people from development to update our software to be compatable with the updates.
"not enough benifit for the public."
Hmm, I never thought of patents being in place to benifit the public. I always thought the were put in place to protect and benefit the creator to put the hard work and money into the idea.
Oh please. Everyone knows that a linux geek would have to refer to the "Porche 911 Turbo 3.6" as something completely abbreviated and totally enigmatic about what it's used for like "P911t3_6" and would be actually be named something like "Gnucar", "Kar", "LiCar", "FastGnu", or "TurboGnu".
I really don't think Sun will completely die off. There are way too many developers out there writing crappy OS specific code for most companies to unilaterally go with one hardware manufacturer. The last company I worked at was a nightmare of interconnected systems. They were trying to go all HP (needed for a new OS specific application), but needed NT boxes (Compaq and old Dells) to coordinate with the users and the old Tandems (needed for an old OS specific application) that had EMS drive boxes, and a couple of small IBMs (for OS specific government compliancy and communication programs).
IT rarely gets much of a say in what a company buys or runs, the execs generally listen to the sales pitch. If your company's IBM rep. has a nice rear end, there's a real good chance that you'll be maintaining IBMs in the near future.
If you work at a company that listens to the IT department, uses only one or two OS's, uses only one or two programming languages, has one hardware provider, then you are either lying or the company is less than a year old.
What kind of lame idiots call it a GUI when a click of an icon brings up a text interface window.
Also, I believe there is way to much "Burger King" GUI programming going on in Linux. To many projects doing it their own way. There needs to be lots more standards put in place, starting with the desktop itself. There needs to be a merger of the features of GNOME and the 'look and feel' of KDE into one standard desktop before Sun's MadHatter muddies the water anymore.
Frankly, I'd like to see allot more organization to the whole software for Linux arena. Not anti-competition, but a standardization of package distribution and compatibility. It's almost getting to the point that you can't run 2 programs at the same time without re-writing one of them to work with the new or outdated support package that another program needs. I was completely floored when I found out that Apache even changed it's file locations when going for ver 1 to ver 2.
Ok, I'm ranting, but I've finally gotten it off my chest. Let the flaming begin.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry I ranted. It's more a problem with the XFree side of Linux. Unfortunately, I don't think they can keep up with the plethora of hardware out there, and there isn't an alternative (that I know of). Every version of Linux I've ever seen runs the same XFree. I agree with you on the "Until Linux becomes a major player on the desktop" part, they will never get there without a good standard API toolkit and a much more robust XFree.
I have three machines. I've put various versions of windows on all of them with no problems, but Linux will only run in text mode on them (no XFree drivers). That includes VPC running on these machine with lunix on the VPC. XFree has always had a problem keeping up with the times. If you know an alternative, other than writing my own driver, please let me know.
The way I look at it is, with the lack of constantly revising the kernel, maybe now they will come out with some standards, an API toolkit, and support for hardware made in the last five years. Yes, that's not completely true about the hardware, but have you tried to install any version of Linux on a new machine and had all the devices work right out of the box. I have access to a large variety of laptops, most of them being Toshiba models, with some Dell, Hitachi, and Compaqs. I gave up after trying to install on 12 different models of laptops. All of them had some problem with graphics, sound, chipsets, controllers, or network interfaces. The manufacturers refer you to the parts makers, the parts makers refer you to XFree or some other linux group, and the linux groups refer you to the manufacturers. It's seems like noone cares if it doesn't work on your machine, you should get a different machine. I've actually been told to write my own drivers if I wanted it to work. Hmmm, Microsoft has never asked me to write drivers before, but of course, they actually work with the parts makers and equipment manufacturers.
Hasn't that already been done with "The Day After"? Or maybe I'm thinking of another reality TV movie.
These are perfectly legal tactics and systems. The honeypots I've heard about were more like systems intentionally and obviously left open for hackers, viruses, and worms. It's more of a tactic of using a gill net to catch fish rather than a fishing pole. They want to see what's out there for research purposes, not entrapment ones. Although, I would support using them for entrapment.
Because .NET is M$'s way of getting around all the other problems of not being in control. It's all about control. It serves to resolve all of their multiple programming language problems (C, C++, Basic, Java++) and their VM/Java woes in one shot. I work for a Microsoft workshop that writes software and the impression I'm getting is that if you don't use active directory and .NET, then you will become the red headed stepchild and be cut-off.
It's just M$ trying to force people to buy the latest and greatest trick that they have been pulling for years.
Well, they did say migrating.
Thanks for the tip on the fan silencers. I didn't know they existed. Now I just have to figure out how to adapt them to my case without it looking like something the Borg made. I currently have a 3 fan power supply, a snorkle fan, 2 fans in the front, 2 on the side, and 2 on the back, not to mention the northbridge and southbridge fans and the 90x38 Delta on the processor. Do you think that's too much? The lights in the room dim a little when I turn the PC on.
I think the public disclosure part is optional. Let's use Coke for example. Their recipe is still a secret and is patented. They are not about to disclose the formula to help anyone come up with a candy bar that will complement the taste of the drink. If I came up with a way to convert matter to energy and energy to matter, while maintaining its original configuration and states, I would definitely patent it. I would probably state to some scientific magazines the basic principles, but not the secret for publicity. That way I could get some investors, start a business, produce a product, and do more research. NOT for the common good of mankind, but for the all mighty Bling-Bling.
Forcing users to download patches could be a major mistake. We have to thuroughly test patches to make sure they work with our internal software. Many of the changes they put in these HotFixes and Service Packs breaks our software written to Microsoft's own specs. I know of 2 service pack, 1 recommended update, and 2 critical updates that we are still warned not to use or the internal software will not run. Our software engineers cannot keep up to the changes. We are having to divert people from development to update our software to be compatable with the updates.
"No it's a C with a circle around it. Microsoft put it there for later use."
"not enough benifit for the public." Hmm, I never thought of patents being in place to benifit the public. I always thought the were put in place to protect and benefit the creator to put the hard work and money into the idea.
Oh please. Everyone knows that a linux geek would have to refer to the "Porche 911 Turbo 3.6" as something completely abbreviated and totally enigmatic about what it's used for like "P911t3_6" and would be actually be named something like "Gnucar", "Kar", "LiCar", "FastGnu", or "TurboGnu".
I really don't think Sun will completely die off. There are way too many developers out there writing crappy OS specific code for most companies to unilaterally go with one hardware manufacturer. The last company I worked at was a nightmare of interconnected systems. They were trying to go all HP (needed for a new OS specific application), but needed NT boxes (Compaq and old Dells) to coordinate with the users and the old Tandems (needed for an old OS specific application) that had EMS drive boxes, and a couple of small IBMs (for OS specific government compliancy and communication programs). IT rarely gets much of a say in what a company buys or runs, the execs generally listen to the sales pitch. If your company's IBM rep. has a nice rear end, there's a real good chance that you'll be maintaining IBMs in the near future. If you work at a company that listens to the IT department, uses only one or two OS's, uses only one or two programming languages, has one hardware provider, then you are either lying or the company is less than a year old.
What kind of lame idiots call it a GUI when a click of an icon brings up a text interface window. Also, I believe there is way to much "Burger King" GUI programming going on in Linux. To many projects doing it their own way. There needs to be lots more standards put in place, starting with the desktop itself. There needs to be a merger of the features of GNOME and the 'look and feel' of KDE into one standard desktop before Sun's MadHatter muddies the water anymore. Frankly, I'd like to see allot more organization to the whole software for Linux arena. Not anti-competition, but a standardization of package distribution and compatibility. It's almost getting to the point that you can't run 2 programs at the same time without re-writing one of them to work with the new or outdated support package that another program needs. I was completely floored when I found out that Apache even changed it's file locations when going for ver 1 to ver 2. Ok, I'm ranting, but I've finally gotten it off my chest. Let the flaming begin.