> Sorry, but this time Microsoft wins. Sunbird is not even a complete piece of software. Last time I used it, not all the menu buttons even did anything.
The article said:
> should be a worthy opponent against Outlook by the middle of the new year."
Now... first of all, what was the last time you tried Sunbird? yesterday? 6 months ago?
Then, middle of the new year is kindof like 6 months from now...
I do not know if Sunbird is a good alternative or if it ever will be, but as you can read (or can you? past experience makes this a bit doubtfull) the claim was not that it is a good alternative now, but that it is growing into one and should be there some 6 months from now, so what exactly was your point besides wanting to be dismissive without having an argument?
> Your post seems to imply that it's okay if browsers can't render a 5 year old page, because of disdain against the developers for daring to possibly use and older, valid flavor of HTML.
If it was actually valid html (unlike slashdot, and unlike your missing/tr example) it would be rendered properly.
You still don't seem to understand that the html was and still is broken. That it shows in some browsers and not in others does not change that. If the html were actually valid, it would be rendered correctly. A missing/tr is invalid html, regardless of html 3.2, 4.0 or xhtml
What is more, by actually handling tables according to the spec (the html 3.2 spec, so nothing new and fancy) the browser code becomes simpler and far less bug prone then when taking into account broken tables, unclosed tags and the like.
Which can only work if you express clearly enough what the hell you mean.
Humans are infinitely better at guessing the meaning of things then computers but even in the case of humans it still is guessing, which means that every so often they will get it wrong.
If you want your dwim, make sure you ewym (express what you mean) properly first.
> Not only does the rest of the insured/tax-paying population have to shoulder the health-care costs of smokers....
Now lets see:
Smoker pays insane amount of tax for smoking, so initially carries the cost for extra healthcare him/herself.
Second, smoker lives shorter on average, and people will get ill and will need healthcare and will die in the end anyway. Someone living shorter actually needs less healthcare on average.
Smoking has a direct and rather high cost to the snoker, it also causes problems for people around him/her due to passive smoking, but it is simply untrue that it causes higher costs for healthcare and in fact the opposite is true while smokers do pay a lot more.
This is all not to say that smoking is agoo,d it is a bad habbit and an addiction, but the argument that society has to pay more for healthcare due to it is simply bullshit and since there are also very good arguments to make, making this specific argument is counter productive, it makes the anti-smoking lobby look like they need to lie to get their way.
Assuming that both projects are GPLed, I think being able to do this is one of the points of the GPL. Making an issue out of it is unethical in that case.
I'm just wondering, did you read the question completely?
The person asking says (s)he wants to do this for the sake of art, and the point is to connect old technology (the typewriter) to new technology (the computer).
Getting hardcopy output in the most practical way was really not the point of the question I think..
So, the 'because I can' argument plays a big role here, and the 'coolness factor' is pretty personal anyway (I find the idea way more cool then doing this with a device that was sortof intended for this use already, but that is just my personal opinion)
> I think the "2 year" part is specific to Sweden though and other EU countries has their own variants, some worse, some better.
Please read the document I mentioned. This is EU wide.
> All this applies to faulty products though. The "return for no reason" is about a non faulty product to which there is no general EU directive that I am aware of and although some countries may have such laws, Sweden for example does not.
It is upto the seller to prove that the product is not deffective. This is indeed not exactly a mandatory no questions asked policy, but it does often come down to it.
> As for your 7 days return part. From looking at it, I think you are mixing up normal sales in stores were you go there and buy and a situation were someone comes to your home (or in other cases, sell over the phone, the net and such). In these there is indeed a minimum time were you can just return with no questions asked. Assuming we talk about a shop situation here, that won't apply.
That is indeed true at first glance. Courts seem to think otherwise (I have had this situation at hand where a customer has forced the company I was then working for to take back a product sold in a normal shop explicitly quoting this).
Also, it applies to contracts, not only those that are made remotely or by a door to door salesman, and in specific cases the term is more then 7 days.
> I typically buy products, not licenses. Besides, I have never made any such agreement, or had any such promise done by any shop that sold me software.
That is how it should be indeed. Matter of fact is, you buy 2 things usually: a pile of in itself almost worthless material (usually consisting of a plastic disc, often called cd, a lot of packaging material etc) and at least in the eyes of software makers, you buy a license to use something that is on that plastic disc.
> On top of that, the EULA is a contract the software maker (not the shop) tries to make to you. Unless they make seperate agreements with the shops the shop really have nothing to do with it.
Untill they allow negotiation and sign it and such, there is no contract here.
If there were a contract then the reseller is representing the producer and as such can be seen as an agent for the producer.
> I actually live in Sweden, which happens to be inside EU and yes, it DO apply here. A shop is not at all required to allow you to return a product. Many shops do anyway though as they feel it makes a good deal. Of course, sale over the net, phone and so are different. Perhaps some EU countries have it different though, I really don't know the law of every country.
Well, looked up the relevant information, and it is a little bit more complex indeed.
I suggest you take a peek at http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/ten_basic_prin ciples.pdf
Specifically, the 'If it doesn't work send it back' part. For the first 6 months after a purchase, it is upto the seller to prove that the product does in fact do what you have been sold. I'd also like to point at point 6 of that document, which has been applied to sales in shops as well.
This is all part of EU consumer protection directives, and also valid in Sweden (more then a year passed since introduction of those directives)
So while you are right that at least at first glance a shop can refuse to take back an item, they will have to prove that the product is in fact as advertised in order to refuse taking it back.
At any rate, if you accept that the EULA is a contract (it fails the criteria for one, but lets just assume for a bit that it is a contract) then EU law indeed mandates a 7 day no questions asked return policy. If you want to view the whole as a product instead, then EU law mandates a 6 months return policy whereby the seller has to prove non defectiveness to refuse a return, and a 2 year return policy where the burden of proof will be with the consumer.
> it's usually works, the greatest oxymoron of all time.
Interesting detail is that early versions of MS Works did actually work... and at some point they did include word 2000 with it.. the most recent versions are just junk and not worth looking at.
> So it may just be that your next Dell box has a big nasty looking Surgeon General's warning on it.
The last time I got to unpack and install a new Dell machine, the first thing happening when turning it on was it presenting me with a EULA and instructions on how to return the box if I was not willing to accept it. Seems Dell at least moved the point of no return till after you accept the EULA.
> The thing is, why SHOULD a store accept such a return? Because the EULA says they should? BUt you just decided to NOT agree to it, so that can't be of any importnace.
Maybe because they agreed to their side of it by selling you the license?
> Also, most (consumer) sale laws in various countries treat a sale as concluded in the shop (when you pay or leave the shop or similary). After that, the purchase is done and the only reason for you to return something is if it is faulty and so on (and the shop typically can repair it instead of accepting a return). There is no need for a store to have a return policy. If one accept that the purchase is not finalized in the store, when is it? Never?
This may be true for the USA, but it is definitely not true for countries within the EU.
You can return a product within 7 days (term may be different between countries) without giving any reason whatsoever, and the shop is required by law to take it back. There are some conditions that can void this and a shop can deny this for specific types of products but only if they very clearly and explicitly state that before you buy something from them. A shop failing to point it out is required by law to take back the product if you return it within the set term.
At any rate, just wanted to point out that what you say may apply to many countries, but there are also many countries where a different set of rules apply.
> For example, I couldn't demand a refund for just the Hard drive if it was in some way inadequate.
Well, I do not know about the USA with regards to this, but in theory you could in Europe.
There are 2 seperate issues with the bundling of Windows with a PC and refusing a refund of Windows.
1. Bundling of products that can be seperated without offering the option of seperating them (or refund and take back an undesired bundled product) is illegal.
2. Funding the inclusion of Windows from the selling price of the hardware is at least in some cases illegal and the same applies to selling things for less then the cost of producing it (fair competition related law aiming to prevent blocking small parties from the market by a big company that can afford to take a loss in order to maintain market share)
The nice result is that I can buy a computer and refuse to also take windows, and the price difference will be that of an oem copy of windows.
But then, this may well be a lot different in the USA. Quite a few american companies by now found out that consumer protection laws in the EU do in fact protect consumers and are something to be aware of.
> His points are perfectly valid from a marketing point of view, which is what he's adressing. Marketing does not give a shit about what something is, all they care about is what it appears to be. Once it turns out to be a cat in a bag it's not their problem anymore.
Firefox is an open source product which largely depends on people advertising it due to good experience with the product. For that reason his points are not valid for marketing of an OSS product like Firefox.
> Because it might undermine their precious GPL too
How so?
The GPL gives you additional rights over what copyright grants you. You can still use GPLed software without accepting the license, you are however limited by copyright law with regards to redistribution in that case.
The more convincing reason for the FSF to not do this is that it simply is not their business. They want to make and encourage 'free' software, and have an issue with certain limitations dictated by copyright. EULAs do not come into the picture there at all.
The proper kind of organisation to act on this would be a consumer interest group.
> The ones that have been noticed may have been weeded out.
Code gets reviewed before it gets included in projects like the Linux kernel. Overly obfusicvated code gets thrown out right at the start of reviewing it, which makes it extremely difficult to hide such things and get them past the reviewing.
Impossible? nope, but extremely unlikely, and way more unlikely then the same thing happening in most commercial development environments.
> If firefox wants to sell security, they need to appear secure. Not having the installed signed isn't a good marketing tactic.
Bullshit. it needs to BE secure, not appear to be secure. Apperance is deception, and all a secure appearance does is make people not pay attention.
It may be news for you, but in the end, security is as much about what is between the ears as what happens on your computer, and makign things appear more secure then they are is a very bad thing.
This does not invalidate the argument for providding signed versions of the installer and making it easy to verify it, but appearance is really not what it is about, and is in fact the worst thing to strive for when lookign at security.
> If I didn't know what I was doing, I wouldn't be installing firefox for the same reason the author brings up. It annoys the crap out of me that most (if not all) plugins aren't signed by their authors.
I installed FF by compiling it from source. I downloaded the source from a random mirror and verified it against the sha hashes provided by Mozilla.This solves the issue very well, but is not an option for most users.
It would indeed be nice to have a signed installer and signed plugins. That said, most people I know who use IE install unsigned crap all the time, so it really doesnt make that much fo a difference. Not allowing software installs is the only way in many cases to address the issue.
> Do you really think that just because nothing bad has happened yet that the good times will continue? That's foolishness. Firefox needs to be perceived to be at least as secure as IE
No, it needs to BE more secure. Being perceived as more secure then it is is a BAD THING.
I'm sure you finished your marketing classes with good result, but this is not about marketing but about technical solutions. Your marketing only gets in the way of getting that done correctly.
> Unless there's a very specific piece of software you need that you know won't work in SP2 there's no reason to avoid it.
How about running Windows in a corporate environment where I am simply not allowed to install it untill it is approved?
How about requiring Windows 2000 for specific software? (Lotus Approach does not run very well on any version of XP, regardless of sp2)
There are many more reasons why people cannot use SP2 then the one you mention, and honestly, your argument looks like one from a person with yero experience in using computers in corporate environments, not to say it looks utterly ignorant.
> Games are such a hog I'm prepared to dual-boot. When a game is running I consider that conputer unavailable for anything else; between rounds I use a 2nd computer.
While I agree that games are usually a big resource hog, it is by far not as bad as you are suggesting.
For example, I have been running a webserver on the same machine that I use for playing Enemy territory. This setup was very usable, and the game and webserver did not cause any noticable interference with eachother (webserver was also using php and jsp, so it did a bit more then serving static pages)
> In terms of hardware though I think same principles as other apps apply but with the best linux graphics card there is... probably Nvidia Geforce 6800? I think SCSI or fast storage is suprisingly useful too!
scsi or a well supported sata setup will work fine, and depending on what the machine is running besides the game, a standard ide setup might do as well. A Gforce 6800 will work very well, and might even be overkill.
Don't bother with ATI tho, their drivers are not performing very well.
> How about a windows machine configured right next to your linux box
Lets see, the person asks very explicitly for a Linux setup. Your answer: Use windows.
Sure, Windows does better for gaming then Linux due to availability of games and supported hardware, but THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION. Neither was it a question about dual booting, it was about running games on Linux.
> You expect Joe Sixpack to do all that to play a game? Not a chance. You might as well be speaking Mandarin.
1. the person asking is obviously a bit more knowledgable then 'Joe Sixpack'
2. you can run games without doing all those things, you will just get the same problems as Windows can have (ie, background processes taking away resources from your game, stupid popups from whatever program interupting your game etc etc)
True, but this is true for every third party kernel module that doesn't get included in a new kernel build, ie, the exact same issue exists with the binary drivers from ATI. (or Matrox for that matter, if you manage to get them to work to begin with)
Slashdot Mirror
You said:
> Sorry, but this time Microsoft wins. Sunbird is not even a complete piece of software. Last time I used it, not all the menu buttons even did anything.
The article said:
> should be a worthy opponent against Outlook by the middle of the new year."
Now... first of all, what was the last time you tried Sunbird? yesterday? 6 months ago?
Then, middle of the new year is kindof like 6 months from now...
I do not know if Sunbird is a good alternative or if it ever will be, but as you can read (or can you? past experience makes this a bit doubtfull) the claim was not that it is a good alternative now, but that it is growing into one and should be there some 6 months from now, so what exactly was your point besides wanting to be dismissive without having an argument?
I do not know about thunder/sunbird, but supposedly Evolution fits in well in such an environment and is OSS.
> Your post seems to imply that it's okay if browsers can't render a 5 year old page, because of disdain against the developers for daring to possibly use and older, valid flavor of HTML.
/tr example) it would be rendered properly.
/tr is invalid html, regardless of html 3.2, 4.0 or xhtml
If it was actually valid html (unlike slashdot, and unlike your missing
You still don't seem to understand that the html was and still is broken. That it shows in some browsers and not in others does not change that. If the html were actually valid, it would be rendered correctly. A missing
What is more, by actually handling tables according to the spec (the html 3.2 spec, so nothing new and fancy) the browser code becomes simpler and far less bug prone then when taking into account broken tables, unclosed tags and the like.
> Never heard of DWIM. Do what I mean?
Which can only work if you express clearly enough what the hell you mean.
Humans are infinitely better at guessing the meaning of things then computers but even in the case of humans it still is guessing, which means that every so often they will get it wrong.
If you want your dwim, make sure you ewym (express what you mean) properly first.
> Not only does the rest of the insured/tax-paying population have to shoulder the health-care costs of smokers....
Now lets see:
Smoker pays insane amount of tax for smoking, so initially carries the cost for extra healthcare him/herself.
Second, smoker lives shorter on average, and people will get ill and will need healthcare and will die in the end anyway. Someone living shorter actually needs less healthcare on average.
Smoking has a direct and rather high cost to the snoker, it also causes problems for people around him/her due to passive smoking, but it is simply untrue that it causes higher costs for healthcare and in fact the opposite is true while smokers do pay a lot more.
This is all not to say that smoking is agoo,d it is a bad habbit and an addiction, but the argument that society has to pay more for healthcare due to it is simply bullshit and since there are also very good arguments to make, making this specific argument is counter productive, it makes the anti-smoking lobby look like they need to lie to get their way.
Assuming that both projects are GPLed, I think being able to do this is one of the points of the GPL. Making an issue out of it is unethical in that case.
> Hmm, hope this clears it up.
Yeah, its clear now what you were trying to say inititally, thanks for the clarification.
I'm just wondering, did you read the question completely?
The person asking says (s)he wants to do this for the sake of art, and the point is to connect old technology (the typewriter) to new technology (the computer).
Getting hardcopy output in the most practical way was really not the point of the question I think..
So, the 'because I can' argument plays a big role here, and the 'coolness factor' is pretty personal anyway (I find the idea way more cool then doing this with a device that was sortof intended for this use already, but that is just my personal opinion)
Hmm, I read it as you saying the 2 year part was specific to sweden, but seems I read it wrong.
> I think the "2 year" part is specific to Sweden though and other EU countries has their own variants, some worse, some better.
Please read the document I mentioned. This is EU wide.
> All this applies to faulty products though. The "return for no reason" is about a non faulty product to which there is no general EU directive that I am aware of and although some countries may have such laws, Sweden for example does not.
It is upto the seller to prove that the product is not deffective. This is indeed not exactly a mandatory no questions asked policy, but it does often come down to it.
> As for your 7 days return part. From looking at it, I think you are mixing up normal sales in stores were you go there and buy and a situation were someone comes to your home (or in other cases, sell over the phone, the net and such). In these there is indeed a minimum time were you can just return with no questions asked. Assuming we talk about a shop situation here, that won't apply.
That is indeed true at first glance. Courts seem to think otherwise (I have had this situation at hand where a customer has forced the company I was then working for to take back a product sold in a normal shop explicitly quoting this).
Also, it applies to contracts, not only those that are made remotely or by a door to door salesman, and in specific cases the term is more then 7 days.
> I typically buy products, not licenses. Besides, I have never made any such agreement, or had any such promise done by any shop that sold me software.
n ciples.pdf
That is how it should be indeed. Matter of fact is, you buy 2 things usually: a pile of in itself almost worthless material (usually consisting of a plastic disc, often called cd, a lot of packaging material etc) and at least in the eyes of software makers, you buy a license to use something that is on that plastic disc.
> On top of that, the EULA is a contract the software maker (not the shop) tries to make to you. Unless they make seperate agreements with the shops the shop really have nothing to do with it.
Untill they allow negotiation and sign it and such, there is no contract here.
If there were a contract then the reseller is representing the producer and as such can be seen as an agent for the producer.
> I actually live in Sweden, which happens to be inside EU and yes, it DO apply here. A shop is not at all required to allow you to return a product. Many shops do anyway though as they feel it makes a good deal. Of course, sale over the net, phone and so are different. Perhaps some EU countries have it different though, I really don't know the law of every country.
Well, looked up the relevant information, and it is a little bit more complex indeed.
I suggest you take a peek at http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/ten_basic_pri
Specifically, the 'If it doesn't work send it back' part. For the first 6 months after a purchase, it is upto the seller to prove that the product does in fact do what you have been sold. I'd also like to point at point 6 of that document, which has been applied to sales in shops as well.
This is all part of EU consumer protection directives, and also valid in Sweden (more then a year passed since introduction of those directives)
So while you are right that at least at first glance a shop can refuse to take back an item, they will have to prove that the product is in fact as advertised in order to refuse taking it back.
At any rate, if you accept that the EULA is a contract (it fails the criteria for one, but lets just assume for a bit that it is a contract) then EU law indeed mandates a 7 day no questions asked return policy. If you want to view the whole as a product instead, then EU law mandates a 6 months return policy whereby the seller has to prove non defectiveness to refuse a return, and a 2 year return policy where the burden of proof will be with the consumer.
> it's usually works, the greatest oxymoron of all time.
Interesting detail is that early versions of MS Works did actually work... and at some point they did include word 2000 with it.. the most recent versions are just junk and not worth looking at.
> So it may just be that your next Dell box has a big nasty looking Surgeon General's warning on it.
The last time I got to unpack and install a new Dell machine, the first thing happening when turning it on was it presenting me with a EULA and instructions on how to return the box if I was not willing to accept it. Seems Dell at least moved the point of no return till after you accept the EULA.
> The thing is, why SHOULD a store accept such a return? Because the EULA says they should? BUt you just decided to NOT agree to it, so that can't be of any importnace.
Maybe because they agreed to their side of it by selling you the license?
> Also, most (consumer) sale laws in various countries treat a sale as concluded in the shop (when you pay or leave the shop or similary). After that, the purchase is done and the only reason for you to return something is if it is faulty and so on (and the shop typically can repair it instead of accepting a return). There is no need for a store to have a return policy. If one accept that the purchase is not finalized in the store, when is it? Never?
This may be true for the USA, but it is definitely not true for countries within the EU.
You can return a product within 7 days (term may be different between countries) without giving any reason whatsoever, and the shop is required by law to take it back. There are some conditions that can void this and a shop can deny this for specific types of products but only if they very clearly and explicitly state that before you buy something from them. A shop failing to point it out is required by law to take back the product if you return it within the set term.
At any rate, just wanted to point out that what you say may apply to many countries, but there are also many countries where a different set of rules apply.
> For example, I couldn't demand a refund for just the Hard drive if it was in some way inadequate.
Well, I do not know about the USA with regards to this, but in theory you could in Europe.
There are 2 seperate issues with the bundling of Windows with a PC and refusing a refund of Windows.
1. Bundling of products that can be seperated without offering the option of seperating them (or refund and take back an undesired bundled product) is illegal.
2. Funding the inclusion of Windows from the selling price of the hardware is at least in some cases illegal and the same applies to selling things for less then the cost of producing it (fair competition related law aiming to prevent blocking small parties from the market by a big company that can afford to take a loss in order to maintain market share)
The nice result is that I can buy a computer and refuse to also take windows, and the price difference will be that of an oem copy of windows.
But then, this may well be a lot different in the USA. Quite a few american companies by now found out that consumer protection laws in the EU do in fact protect consumers and are something to be aware of.
> His points are perfectly valid from a marketing point of view, which is what he's adressing. Marketing does not give a shit about what something is, all they care about is what it appears to be. Once it turns out to be a cat in a bag it's not their problem anymore.
Firefox is an open source product which largely depends on people advertising it due to good experience with the product. For that reason his points are not valid for marketing of an OSS product like Firefox.
> Because it might undermine their precious GPL too
How so?
The GPL gives you additional rights over what copyright grants you. You can still use GPLed software without accepting the license, you are however limited by copyright law with regards to redistribution in that case.
The more convincing reason for the FSF to not do this is that it simply is not their business. They want to make and encourage 'free' software, and have an issue with certain limitations dictated by copyright. EULAs do not come into the picture there at all.
The proper kind of organisation to act on this would be a consumer interest group.
> The ones that have been noticed may have been weeded out.
Code gets reviewed before it gets included in projects like the Linux kernel. Overly obfusicvated code gets thrown out right at the start of reviewing it, which makes it extremely difficult to hide such things and get them past the reviewing.
Impossible? nope, but extremely unlikely, and way more unlikely then the same thing happening in most commercial development environments.
> He had legitimate points.
Yes, he has a few legitimate points indeed..
> If firefox wants to sell security, they need to appear secure. Not having the installed signed isn't a good marketing tactic.
Bullshit. it needs to BE secure, not appear to be secure. Apperance is deception, and all a secure appearance does is make people not pay attention.
It may be news for you, but in the end, security is as much about what is between the ears as what happens on your computer, and makign things appear more secure then they are is a very bad thing.
This does not invalidate the argument for providding signed versions of the installer and making it easy to verify it, but appearance is really not what it is about, and is in fact the worst thing to strive for when lookign at security.
> If I didn't know what I was doing, I wouldn't be installing firefox for the same reason the author brings up. It annoys the crap out of me that most (if not all) plugins aren't signed by their authors.
I installed FF by compiling it from source. I downloaded the source from a random mirror and verified it against the sha hashes provided by Mozilla.This solves the issue very well, but is not an option for most users.
It would indeed be nice to have a signed installer and signed plugins. That said, most people I know who use IE install unsigned crap all the time, so it really doesnt make that much fo a difference. Not allowing software installs is the only way in many cases to address the issue.
> Do you really think that just because nothing bad has happened yet that the good times will continue? That's foolishness. Firefox needs to be perceived to be at least as secure as IE
No, it needs to BE more secure. Being perceived as more secure then it is is a BAD THING.
I'm sure you finished your marketing classes with good result, but this is not about marketing but about technical solutions. Your marketing only gets in the way of getting that done correctly.
Rather, you need some sense of humor.
> Unless there's a very specific piece of software you need that you know won't work in SP2 there's no reason to avoid it.
How about running Windows in a corporate environment where I am simply not allowed to install it untill it is approved?
How about requiring Windows 2000 for specific software? (Lotus Approach does not run very well on any version of XP, regardless of sp2)
There are many more reasons why people cannot use SP2 then the one you mention, and honestly, your argument looks like one from a person with yero experience in using computers in corporate environments, not to say it looks utterly ignorant.
> Games are such a hog I'm prepared to dual-boot. When a game is running I consider that conputer unavailable for anything else; between rounds I use a 2nd computer.
While I agree that games are usually a big resource hog, it is by far not as bad as you are suggesting.
For example, I have been running a webserver on the same machine that I use for playing Enemy territory. This setup was very usable, and the game and webserver did not cause any noticable interference with eachother (webserver was also using php and jsp, so it did a bit more then serving static pages)
> In terms of hardware though I think same principles as other apps apply but with the best linux graphics card there is... probably Nvidia Geforce 6800? I think SCSI or fast storage is suprisingly useful too!
scsi or a well supported sata setup will work fine, and depending on what the machine is running besides the game, a standard ide setup might do as well. A Gforce 6800 will work very well, and might even be overkill.
Don't bother with ATI tho, their drivers are not performing very well.
>> Best Configuration for Linux Gaming?
> How about a windows machine configured right next to your linux box
Lets see, the person asks very explicitly for a Linux setup. Your answer: Use windows.
Sure, Windows does better for gaming then Linux due to availability of games and supported hardware, but THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION. Neither was it a question about dual booting, it was about running games on Linux.
> You expect Joe Sixpack to do all that to play a game? Not a chance. You might as well be speaking Mandarin.
1. the person asking is obviously a bit more knowledgable then 'Joe Sixpack'
2. you can run games without doing all those things, you will just get the same problems as Windows can have (ie, background processes taking away resources from your game, stupid popups from whatever program interupting your game etc etc)
True, but this is true for every third party kernel module that doesn't get included in a new kernel build, ie, the exact same issue exists with the binary drivers from ATI. (or Matrox for that matter, if you manage to get them to work to begin with)