Heck, I'm hardly one to suggest that mass adoption is a mark of crapitude. I much prefer XP to 98 (having spent five years on a 98 box), and would rather use OS9 than go back to 98.
The idea of fault implies blame, and blame really isn't an issue. It's a feature of XP that it comes with all manner of drivers for third-party applications- it's not a failing of Linux that it doesn't. The OP should be ecstatic that the MSFT stuff worked off the bat, rather than bitching about how Linux didn't magically update itself.
As to NT->2000->XP, do you honestly believe anyone stood a chance against MSFT at any point post-DOS? People bought Microsoft because Microsoft is what you buy. Vista could be the biggest piece of shit since Windows ME (which would be quite an accomplishment), and it'd still outsell OSX and Linux by several orders of magnitude.
I can back up the anti-HP sentiment. My old HP PAvillion was nothing but trouble with limited upgradability. Damn thing didn't even have an AGP port, ffs.
No, I labelled you an idiot for a) ignoring everything I say unless acknowledging I said it allows you to make some further half-baked insult at me and b) wanting people to be impressed that you're an MCSE. I don't particularly have any feelings one way or the other about Linux's capability for long-term market dominance, nor would I recognise Torvalds if I saw him in the street. You have in your mind assigned me a set of attributes that define the stereotypical "Linux Snob", and despite the fact that that's not me, you continually insult me and assert that I hold these ideas. That is why I call you an idiot- your connection to reality appears to dependant wholly on whether or not reality is conducive to making yourself feel better by taking a swing at some Linux snob, regardless of the fact that there is no Linux snob here to swing at. Grow up.
You've been personal and insulting from the start, incoherently accusing me of not wanting to fix Linux , of "blaming" MSFT for some poorly-defined ill, or simply going off on irrelevancies. Looking back over our conversation, it's me being nigh-infinitely patient with your blathering on about what Linux needs to do, which you have, for no reason that I can discern, decided to aim at me. Along the way, you've constantly made insulting assumptions and implications about me, and I'm really tired of it.
See, here I am having a polite conversation, thinking you're a troll, and now I realise you're not a troll- you're just an idiot. It's been fun, sunshine.
I do, in fact, believe that Linux needs to be improved to succeed. I simply don't believe that this particular incident is the fault of Linux, nor am I blaming MSFT nor the free market. You are continuing to falsely attribute ideas and beliefs and motivations to me. Please stop.
Also, have you ever actually used Windows NT? That thing was a piece of shit and a perfect example of what happens when manufacturers depend on other parties to write their drivers. The idea that NT's survival and evolution to XP is due solely to NT being a superior product is laughable.
I'm not a programmer, and I'm not involved with any efforts to "make Linux succeed". The mobo works perfectly with Windows because the mobo's manufacturer wrote drivers specifically to work with Windows. The only way for Linux to match that is for manufacturers to write and test drivers for each of their products for each distribution of Linux. This is not a failing of Linux. This is a function of the market- specifically, this is what happens to products with very little marketshare competing with products with near-monopolistic marketshare.
I don't really see it as an issue. Either manufacturers are willing to release Free drivers or they aren't. I understand they'd rather keep everything proprietary, but they need to understand that the cost of that is losing the business of Linux users. It's a choice they have to make, and (though as a socialist it kills me to say it) the market will determine who survives.
I didn't say RTFM. I at no point implied that s/he should refer to external documentation. I explained why the situation arose as it did and expressed surprise that someone capable of setting up a machine capable of dualbooting would have problems with the idea that new hardware necessitates new drivers.
I'd add that I don't think mass adoption of Linux is a good idea, nor do I regard it as "my product", but I suspect that doing so would simply encourage you to further attribute ideas and statements to me erroneously.
The difference is that the mobo drivers came with windows. It's a big part of why XP works so well with hardware- because the hardware manufacturers, desparate to have their hardware work happily with the most popular OS on earth, write drivers for XP and send them to MSFT, who packages them with XP (a large part of why XP is so bloated). The same thing doesn't happen with Linux- you need to upgrade your Linux drivers manually. It's not a failing of Linux, it's just an effect of MSFT's near-monopolistic market share.
So the operating systems for which hardware manufacturers write drivers, and which drivers come with the damn OS in case someone needs them, are held to a higher standard than the one most manufacturers don't give a fuck about?
Look, it's simple. ATI/nVidia knows there's anger over their refusal to provide for drivers. It's not about whether they're obligated or not- PR and reality are always divorced. It's about defusing the Free Software community's ill will without actually remedying the problem. They don't give a fuck about FOSS- and if they were honest, they'd say so. But they're not honest- they're making up garbage because they know that if they told the truth, it'd hurt the company's image.
And in the corporate world, bad PR is worse than the plague.
ATI's driver remains proprietary for intellectual property reasons, the Canadian company said. "There's third-party intellectual property that ATI has licensed that is required by law to be protected," said Matthew Tippett, ATI's Linux software engineering manager. "And the graphics market is hotly competitive, and particularly in the high-end cards, we have lots of intellectual property. We want to maintain the proprietary, trade-secret nature of that as long as possible."
This very much reminds me of Stallman's bit about people who want to use the GNU/Linux crowd as a market,and not a community.
Slashdot Mirror
I went to a four-hour concert about a year ago that cost $3 and featured more talent than Madonna's ever dreamed of having. Good times.
Heck, I'm hardly one to suggest that mass adoption is a mark of crapitude. I much prefer XP to 98 (having spent five years on a 98 box), and would rather use OS9 than go back to 98.
The idea of fault implies blame, and blame really isn't an issue. It's a feature of XP that it comes with all manner of drivers for third-party applications- it's not a failing of Linux that it doesn't. The OP should be ecstatic that the MSFT stuff worked off the bat, rather than bitching about how Linux didn't magically update itself.
As to NT->2000->XP, do you honestly believe anyone stood a chance against MSFT at any point post-DOS? People bought Microsoft because Microsoft is what you buy. Vista could be the biggest piece of shit since Windows ME (which would be quite an accomplishment), and it'd still outsell OSX and Linux by several orders of magnitude.
People who buy from eMachines, Gateway, Acer, Compaq, and HP get what they've got coming to them.
Well, s/he did mention "Evil Inside"...
The devil wears snowshoes.
I can back up the anti-HP sentiment. My old HP PAvillion was nothing but trouble with limited upgradability. Damn thing didn't even have an AGP port, ffs.
That's not fair at all. I had a power cord for my Dell laptop die, and the guy I talked to, Sameer, was nothing but helpful.
Is it really Dell's allegiance to Intel, or is it market saturation?
And once it empties because Apple's fucked up an excellent market position yet again, they'll be able to rent it out and still profit on it!
No, I labelled you an idiot for a) ignoring everything I say unless acknowledging I said it allows you to make some further half-baked insult at me and b) wanting people to be impressed that you're an MCSE. I don't particularly have any feelings one way or the other about Linux's capability for long-term market dominance, nor would I recognise Torvalds if I saw him in the street. You have in your mind assigned me a set of attributes that define the stereotypical "Linux Snob", and despite the fact that that's not me, you continually insult me and assert that I hold these ideas. That is why I call you an idiot- your connection to reality appears to dependant wholly on whether or not reality is conducive to making yourself feel better by taking a swing at some Linux snob, regardless of the fact that there is no Linux snob here to swing at. Grow up.
You've been personal and insulting from the start, incoherently accusing me of not wanting to fix Linux , of "blaming" MSFT for some poorly-defined ill, or simply going off on irrelevancies. Looking back over our conversation, it's me being nigh-infinitely patient with your blathering on about what Linux needs to do, which you have, for no reason that I can discern, decided to aim at me. Along the way, you've constantly made insulting assumptions and implications about me, and I'm really tired of it.
Piss off.
I think most of them hang out at fanfiction.net...
BTW, I am the worlds oldest living MCSE.
See, here I am having a polite conversation, thinking you're a troll, and now I realise you're not a troll- you're just an idiot. It's been fun, sunshine.
I do, in fact, believe that Linux needs to be improved to succeed. I simply don't believe that this particular incident is the fault of Linux, nor am I blaming MSFT nor the free market. You are continuing to falsely attribute ideas and beliefs and motivations to me. Please stop.
Also, have you ever actually used Windows NT? That thing was a piece of shit and a perfect example of what happens when manufacturers depend on other parties to write their drivers. The idea that NT's survival and evolution to XP is due solely to NT being a superior product is laughable.
I'm not a programmer, and I'm not involved with any efforts to "make Linux succeed". The mobo works perfectly with Windows because the mobo's manufacturer wrote drivers specifically to work with Windows. The only way for Linux to match that is for manufacturers to write and test drivers for each of their products for each distribution of Linux. This is not a failing of Linux. This is a function of the market- specifically, this is what happens to products with very little marketshare competing with products with near-monopolistic marketshare.
I don't really see it as an issue. Either manufacturers are willing to release Free drivers or they aren't. I understand they'd rather keep everything proprietary, but they need to understand that the cost of that is losing the business of Linux users. It's a choice they have to make, and (though as a socialist it kills me to say it) the market will determine who survives.
I didn't say RTFM. I at no point implied that s/he should refer to external documentation. I explained why the situation arose as it did and expressed surprise that someone capable of setting up a machine capable of dualbooting would have problems with the idea that new hardware necessitates new drivers.
I'd add that I don't think mass adoption of Linux is a good idea, nor do I regard it as "my product", but I suspect that doing so would simply encourage you to further attribute ideas and statements to me erroneously.
Yeah, I'm a tool for knowing that Windows ships with third-party drivers and Linux doesn't. How very insightful.
The difference is that the mobo drivers came with windows. It's a big part of why XP works so well with hardware- because the hardware manufacturers, desparate to have their hardware work happily with the most popular OS on earth, write drivers for XP and send them to MSFT, who packages them with XP (a large part of why XP is so bloated). The same thing doesn't happen with Linux- you need to upgrade your Linux drivers manually. It's not a failing of Linux, it's just an effect of MSFT's near-monopolistic market share.
So the operating systems for which hardware manufacturers write drivers, and which drivers come with the damn OS in case someone needs them, are held to a higher standard than the one most manufacturers don't give a fuck about?
Such impressive logic.
So you swapped out the motherboard and you're surprised that previously installed software no longer works properly?
No, seriously, why is this a shock?
Look, it's simple. ATI/nVidia knows there's anger over their refusal to provide for drivers. It's not about whether they're obligated or not- PR and reality are always divorced. It's about defusing the Free Software community's ill will without actually remedying the problem. They don't give a fuck about FOSS- and if they were honest, they'd say so. But they're not honest- they're making up garbage because they know that if they told the truth, it'd hurt the company's image.
And in the corporate world, bad PR is worse than the plague.
The (wo)man's absolutely right. I'm not sure why you think "Grow up" is an argument.
From TFA:
ATI's driver remains proprietary for intellectual property reasons, the Canadian company said. "There's third-party intellectual property that ATI has licensed that is required by law to be protected," said Matthew Tippett, ATI's Linux software engineering manager. "And the graphics market is hotly competitive, and particularly in the high-end cards, we have lots of intellectual property. We want to maintain the proprietary, trade-secret nature of that as long as possible."
This very much reminds me of Stallman's bit about people who want to use the GNU/Linux crowd as a market,and not a community.