Vista Will Exterminate Desktop Linux Once And For All.

[Guest]

"> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
wrote the ****tard who does nothing but promote linux in windows
groups.

Don't blame him
Blame flatfish, who nymshifted yet again and crossposted his wintroll drivel
across usenet. He was the OP. He is one of your fellow winretards, BTW
He constantly lies, he is a vile racist and a software thief.
In other words, a very typical windows user

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

Linux can run many winmodems and most other "Windows-only" devices,
provided the specs and firmware are made available. In some cases it can
do it even without the specs, for example using ndiswrapper to run Windows
networking drivers.

ndiswrappers is not a full solution. They're complicated to configure, and
they don't offer all the features of the chipsets. And it doesn't work
with all drivers either.

No, they're going to tell the manufacturer of the $15 device that they'll
order 10,000 pieces only if they come with Linux drivers, else they'll
buy from a competitor.

No, they won't. Not when Linux is less than 1% of their business.

An "insignificant percentage" of the total cost is still a finite amount.
It's only worth producing drivers for a given platform if that will
produce enough sales to exceed the costs. IMO Linux has been there for
some time but Microsoft works very hard (to put it exceedingly politely)
to deter OEM's and hardware manufacturers from allowing OSS into the
market.

Really? And what proof do you have of that? Ok, skip the proof. What
evidence do you have to support that claim?

Ah, but they really do. The high-end video drivers released by ATI and
Nvidia aren't needed by servers, you know.

Ahh, yes, that's why so many major vendors are just tripping over
themselves to offer Desktop linux systems.

And I can give you a whole bunch more the other way.


How long did it take someone to write the drivers for all those chipsets
for Windows?

I have no idea, but those drivers are typically available on the day the
hardware goes on sale. Linux users had to wait almost a year to run X well
on the intel integrated graphics.

Of course there is. If you don't trust the OSS process and just
*have* to have a contract, hire a consultant. I hear that many of the
kernel guys pick up some spare pocket change this way.

What? All 50 of them?

If the manufacturer cooperates, the open-source community will be thrilled
to create the drivers.

Nice of you to speak for them. WIll you be doing it personally? You know
you're full of shit and can't speak for them.

No, I'm demonstrating a massive failure of closed source to satisfy the
chip manufacturer's needs in a timely manner.

Base hardware architecture is not the same thing as a driver.

That's why I said "closed source" instead of "Microsoft". It wasn't just
Microsoft that failed with the move to 64-bit CPU's. The whole
closed-source model failed to produce the drivers and applications to help
sell the new platform.

I'm not talking about Windows. You know there's more than one closed
source OS for x86, right?

 

[Gordon]

"> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
wrote the ****tard who does nothing but promote linux in windows
groups.

Typical WinDOZEY reply.....look at the HEADERS. (If you know what those
are....)

 

[BIGGEESHAFT]

Chief OHara wrote:




Typical WinDOZEY reply.....look at the HEADERS. (If you know what those
are....)

This is a typical Linux corn cob up your ass reply from someone who at 8
had bad dreams about Bill Gates.

 

[chrisv]

Ahh yes, and of course having the hardware on the motherboard means it
doesn't require a driver.

Wrong, obviously. Your point is?

Spot the logic flaw, Mr. Kettle.

Most everything you spout is logically flawed, FUDmeister.

 

[Gordon]

BIGGEESHAFT wrote:

This is a typical Linux corn cob up your ass reply from someone who at 8
had bad dreams about Bill Gates.

And YOU obviously can't look at headers EITHER.
And BTW, when I was 8, BG wasn't even a little bad-mouthed sperm swimming
around in his daddy's sperm sack - if he had a daddy that is......

 

[chrisv]

What flaw?

Excepting wide variances in motherboards, which are not
out of the question given the wide variances in things like NICs,
integrated peripheral components will at the very least provide
you with a good deal of PREDICTABILITY that makes it rediculously
easy to support what is a very stable target.

The FUDmeister is embarrassing himself with his gross illogic again.
The OEM does NOT need to verify and support myriad different hardware
sets and Linux versions. It's just NOT that difficult to spec a
bog-standard motherboard with integrated peripherals that has good
Linux driver support. This isn't even difficult for the the average
geek, much less for a multi-billion-dollar computer company!

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

Wrong, obviously. Your point is?

I say drivers are a big problem for OEM's and Linux. Your answer was that
it was irrelevant because all the hardware OEM's ship is on the
motherboard. My answer was the above, pointing out (sarcastcally) being on
the motherboard didn't negate the need for a driver.

Most everything you spout is logically flawed, FUDmeister.

What irony.

 

[BIGGEESHAFT]

BIGGEESHAFT wrote:





And YOU obviously can't look at headers EITHER.

I am here to **** with damn headers, since you like to continuously run
your ****ing mouth. You're worst than the three two bit ho(s) 7 and Au69
or 79 whatever the **** its name is and SeaCream aka Toller -- tooler
whatever.

And BTW, when I was 8, BG wasn't even a little bad-mouthed sperm swimming
around in his daddy's sperm sack - if he had a daddy that is......

It seems you got one foot in the grave. Are you posting from the grave?
Maybe, they should drive a Linux stake through your ****ing heart and
close the casket.

 

[BIGGEESHAFT]

<correction>

I am here to **** with you damn some headers.

<correction>

 

[chrisv]

I say drivers are a big problem for OEM's and Linux. Your answer was that
it was irrelevant because all the hardware OEM's ship is on the
motherboard. My answer was the above, pointing out (sarcastcally) being on
the motherboard didn't negate the need for a driver.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. That doesn't make drivers a "problem" for
the OEM. Modern integrated motherboards make drivers LESS of a
problem, which was my point in response to your FUD.

What irony.

Not at all. I (and others) have documented *atrocious* logic from you
on MANY occasions. No such record exists for me.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. That doesn't make drivers a "problem" for
the OEM. Modern integrated motherboards make drivers LESS of a
problem, which was my point in response to your FUD.

...depending on the mobo.

It will either work or not. There will be no middle ground
really. There will be no opportunity to switch out components or
allow the end user to select different components.

[deletia]

...kind makes desktops like laptops.

 

[chrisv]

...depending on the mobo.

It will either work or not. There will be no middle ground
really. There will be no opportunity to switch out components or
allow the end user to select different components.

So the OEM tries a few motherboards until he finds one that works with
the distro(s) he wants to offer. Problem solved.

 

[Rock]

Your machine might have sufficient hardware resources to run Vista, but
the only reason Microsoft introduced ReadyBoost is because the enormous
resource requirements of the OS. Without it the market for Vista would
be severely limited. It's in effect an admission that once again their
software is truly bloatware.

I disagree. Not many testers in the Beta program are using ReadyBoost. How
is it you know why they introduced it?

 

[Phisherman]

No doubt about Vista, but it is not justified to say that Linux is irrelevent.
Linux is a separate OS and has its loyal followers. Certainly good for poor
people who cannot buy Windows. Atleast they can work on computers.

My old M$ box was too slow for WinXP, so I loaded Linux onto it.
configured a proxy server and firewall to serve my Windows machines.
Too bad Microsoft's security is not too good, making Linux a good
choice. But then again, Linux is not for the faint at heart.

 

[arachnid]

ndiswrappers is not a full solution. They're complicated to configure, and
they don't offer all the features of the chipsets. And it doesn't work
with all drivers either.

Pay attention, Erik. I didn't say it was a full solution or even the only
solution. Ndiswrapper is only one of several approaches to using
made-for-Windows components on linux. It may not work well on everything
out there, but it works well on a fair number of devices. I've used it
myself to drive a new broadcom wifi chipset that was otherwise
unsupported. It worked beautifully.

Another way to go is commercial closed-source drivers. Linuxant sells
Linux drivers for networking devices, Xi Graphics sells high-performance
graphics drivers for X, etc.

No, they won't. Not when Linux is less than 1% of their business.

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't be working so hard to
discourage Windows users from defecting to Linux.

Really? And what proof do you have of that? Ok, skip the proof. What
evidence do you have to support that claim?

To which claim do you refer? After all the times you've been chewed up and
spit out about the subject on COLA, it can't be the one about Microsoft
attempting to keep competition out of the market -- not unless your sole
intent is to waste my time proving something you already know to be true.

Ahh, yes, that's why so many major vendors are just tripping over
themselves to offer Desktop linux systems.

They don't really need to. Linux runs fine on many current
made-for-Windows systems. I didn't even bother checking the hardware
compatibility lists when I bought my latest laptop. That did get me into
trouble with FreeBSD but no problem for Linux.

I have no idea, but those drivers are typically available on the day the
hardware goes on sale. Linux users had to wait almost a year to run X
well on the intel integrated graphics.

Since you don't know I'll have to go try to dig up the details myself.
Intel has had several big specification releases, so specifically which
chipsets are you talking about and when did this event happen?

What? All 50 of them?

Once again you take something given as one example and try to cast it as
the only choice. Linuxant is one of many companies who contract to
write Linux drivers:

http://www.linuxant.com

Linuxant is a world-class supplier of consulting, software development
and professional support services.

We work closely with leading vendors and OEMs of semiconductor, PC,
embedded and communication/wireless products, as well as with
companies in other industries, providing technological expertise and
solutions to maximize the potential of Linux and open-source.

Additionally, we develop and distribute specialized system software,
such as device drivers for specific applications.

Personally I think it's unnecessary to go that route, but to each their
own.

Nice of you to speak for them. WIll you be doing it personally?

Their incredible performance with the aforementioned 64-bit CPU's
speaks for itself.

You know you're full of shit and can't speak for them.

You're sure getting grumpy nowadays.

Base hardware architecture is not the same thing as a driver.

The CPU isn't the only thing on the motherboard. Various integrated
devices (HD controllers, sound, graphics, etc.) need drivers. If
you put a 64-bit OS on the motherboard, then to make the most of it you
need 64-bit drivers for various peripherals. People aren't going to buy a
computer just to sit and look at the OS so you also need applications.
They will probably want to keep their existing peripherals so you need
drivers for those that will run on the 64-bit OS. Lacking any of those
pieces could deter them from upgrading from their current system - which
means OEM's will build fewer computers using your chipset and you will
lose sales.

Now it's true that Linux had too small a percentage of the market back
then (or even now) for its availability to help sell as many of those
64-bit CPU's as Windows might have if it had been ready with applications
and drivers. However, the event demonstrated the strengths of open-source
development, the weaknesses of closed-source, validated what the OSS
community had been saying for years about the advantages of OSS-vs-CSS,
and showed up Microsoft's fear-mongering for what it was. Soon afterwards
I noticed a huge upsurge on drivers and corporate support for various OSS
projects.

It also gave Linux users a 64-bit OS so that we can now sit here
laughing at all you Wintrolls stuck in 32-bit land *years* after
64-bit PC's hit the market. You can FUD all you want, Erik, but I'm still
the one sitting here with a slick free-as-in-beer/free-as-in-speech 64-bit
OS, 15,000 free/free 64-bit applications, absolutely no worries about
DRM/WPA/WGA/viruses/trojans/spyware/adware, and source code for anything I
care to tweak.

Is that why you're so grumpy, Erik?

I'm not talking about Windows. You know there's more than one closed
source OS for x86, right?

Yeah, but Windows is what brings you and your linux-bashing FUD to
comp.os.linux.advocacy.

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't be working so hard to
discourage Windows users from defecting to Linux.

a) I'm not discouraging anyone from defecting to Linux. b) I've been here
for about 7 years, long before Linux was even on anyones radar.

To which claim do you refer? After all the times you've been chewed up and
spit out about the subject on COLA, it can't be the one about Microsoft
attempting to keep competition out of the market -- not unless your sole
intent is to waste my time proving something you already know to be true.

You only made one claim. That Microsoft is twisting OEM's arms to not
support Linux.

Since you don't know I'll have to go try to dig up the details myself.
Intel has had several big specification releases, so specifically which
chipsets are you talking about and when did this event happen?

It's been a while, but IIRC it was the i810 chipset.

Yeah, but Windows is what brings you and your linux-bashing FUD to
comp.os.linux.advocacy.

I don't really bash Linux. Please, by all means show me where I am. Just
because I have some critical things to say about it doesn't mean it's a
bash.

The only remark I can think of in recent memory that might be considered a
bash was my flippant comment about Linux taking 15 years to become a usable
desktop OS, and even that's a stretch. It was sarcasm.

 

[chrisv]

So the OEM tries a few motherboards until he finds one that works with
the distro(s) he wants to offer. Problem solved.

Or, if they're big enough, they can just specify the exact hardware
they want. If Dell wants a certain WiFi controller on the
motherboard, they can have it.

 

[arachnid]

a) I'm not discouraging anyone from defecting to Linux.

You're an almost continuous source of anti-Linux FUD.

b) I've been here for about 7 years, long before Linux was even on
anyones radar.

The Halloween Memorandum that leaked out of Microsoft in 1998 would
suggest otherwise.

Note to our large imaginary usenet audience: Erik already knows all about
the Halloween Memorandum and he also knows full well Linux was very much
on Microsoft's radar in 1998. Anyone else wondering what the Halloween
Memorandum is, can find it at:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

You only made one claim. That Microsoft is twisting OEM's arms to not
support Linux.

Don't try to play dumb. You know all about the Halloween documents, the US
antitrust trial, the deliberate insertion of code into Windows 3.x to kill
DRDOS and make it look like DRDOS's fault, Microsoft's denial of market
access that killed BEOS through penalties against OEMs (covered up with
secrecy clauses in Microsoft's contracts), the successful lawsuits
against Microsoft by BeOS and DRDOS, the Halloween Memorandum, EU
hearings, the recent news that came out about Microsoft's support of SCO,
ad. nauseam.

Just like I said, you're trying to make me waste my time repeating
an argument that you've lost many times.

It's been a while, but IIRC it was the i810 chipset.

That's all you've got, an ancient chipset that was already getting
outdated when Intel released the specs to OSS developers who, just
incidentally, were in the midst of a one-time major graphics rewrite that
involved most of agpart and large sections of the kernel, DRI, and
X, as Linux was transitioned to a consumer OS?

I don't really bash Linux. Please, by all means show me where I am.
Just because I have some critical things to say about it doesn't mean
it's a bash.

You just run around a Linux advocacy group creating Fear, Uncertainty, and
Doubt about Linux while trying to make Windows sound like the cat's meow
by comparison. The statements on Microsoft's "Get the Facts" FUD page
can't be proven to be deliberate lies, yet naive visitors are left with an
extremely negative false-impression of Linux. That's the same thing you do
here.

The only remark I can think of in recent memory that might be considered
a bash was my flippant comment about Linux taking 15 years to become a
usable desktop OS, and even that's a stretch. It was sarcasm.

I guess it's a matter of whether one considers FUD to be the same as
bashing.

 

[flatfish+++]

The Halloween Memorandum that leaked out of Microsoft in 1998 would
suggest otherwise.

1998 ?????

Is that the best you can come up with?