Linux has a long way to go before it becomes the major OS

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by Guest, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. I remember my dad complaining about them and wishing for a
    manual one.
     
    Grant Edwards, Feb 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Guy Macon Guest

    Linux is like a car with an automatic choke that you have the plans
    for and which you have the tools to fix.
     
    Guy Macon, Feb 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. That's not necessarily surprising. I'm sure they do make a nice sum on
    Mac Office. It's a relatively small market, and exists and will
    continue to exist for the foreseeable future.

    But it doesn't help them with the desktop dominion, which on Intel
    platforms provides them with two revenue streams, as well as extending
    the monopoly with things like IE and media player. Oh, and Exchange
    server and that misbegotten Outlook.

    Three Desktops for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
    One Desktop to rule them all. One Desktop to find them,
    One Desktop to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
    In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.'

    with apologies to JRRT.
    Well, duh... ;-) I think the same can be said for Redhat, Mandrake and
    SUSE...errr...Novell...whatever...

    James
     
    I R A Darth Aggie, Feb 9, 2004
  4. Guest

    Ron Matthews Guest

    It is if you are going to write system software.
    You need to understand the hardware so that you can write the
    software.
    What kind of software are you talking about? Stuff written in
    Java? Visual Basic?

    Cobol?

    You don't know what you're talking about.

    G'nite Wanda,

    cordially, as always,

    rm
     
    Ron Matthews, Feb 9, 2004
  5. Guest

    Fred Emmott Guest

    not true. what understanding of your computer do you need to write a program
    which manipulates /etc/inittab as just one example.
    How do you explain java programs? Run on x86, Macs, IBM's power
    processesors, and even my mobile phone (no, it does not run either a cut
    down windows or linux - LG 7100)
    Irrelevant. A gtk-perl program looks and can be used if so designed, exactly
    the same as a c program using gtk.
    i currently have 38 killfile entries for you... no, make that 49.

    Fred
     
    Fred Emmott, Feb 9, 2004
  6. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1


    | Ron Matthews wrote:

    |>But the linux zealots believe that if you drive a standard (linux)
    |>you know more about the car than if you drive an automatic
    |>(windoze). But this is false. The only thing you know more about
    |>with the standard is shifting gears which you don't have in an
    |>automatic anyway.
    |>
    |>cordially, as always,
    |>
    |>rm

    (I'm answering here, because my filter works effectively :))

    Oh, what a perfect car it would be if:
    - - you couldn't even take a look at its engine
    - - after purchasing it you'd have to call assistance to turn it on
    - - it asked you ten times if you really, really, really wanted to push
    a brake that hard (and you would hit a tree in the meantime)
    - - you had to pay 1000x more money for it

    Oh, dear. I'll rather drive it my (slackware-) current way.
    jkb


    - --
    Im wyzszy postawisz sobie cel, tym bardziej bedziesz samotny.
    (R. Kapuscinski)
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFAKCBMQhBzeHEgRd4RAjKUAJ9I2tFz0t0pWCJGlFKhVUJClz7AfgCgr8Tv
    k4ZXJcZbbOHyDUdH6LypXh4=
    =R9s0
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=22Jacek_K=2E_B=B3aszkowski=22?=, Feb 10, 2004
  7. Guest

    Ben Measures Guest

    Does that sentence serve any point? What does that have to do with the
    previous postings?

    Here's my chance to use a word I learnt recently: You, my dear Sir, are
    "polemic".
    Not at all.

    Whilst the overall structure of the way the hardware is put together is
    based on standards, the actual hardware components are increasingly
    complex from generation to generation.

    This complexity is tightly guarded by Patents and lack of public
    schematics and documentation, to protect the increasing cost of R&D.

    So why the "nonsense" brushing aside?
    There are three cases in which you need to know about the hardware:
    1.) You're programming in assembly;
    2.) You're writing drivers;
    3.) You're writing kernel code.

    Very few people are insane enough to do 1 anymore. Nobody does big
    projects with assembly code as the main language.

    You can only do 2 if you have the right documentation. This usually
    comes either: by being an employee of the hardware manufacturer, or by
    getting hold of very rare public documentation, usually by begging the
    manufacturer.

    You can only do 3 with free software. That means not Windows.

    In short, what are you trying to do except cause argument?
    Huh? You seem to know the names of a few languages. So what?
    If anything, you helped Joe's case. That leads me to think the above
    applies to you.
    I really don't see anything hearty, sincere, warm or affectionate in
    your post.

    Please, if you're going to post make sure you have a point and that it's
    relevant to the previous postings.

    --
    Ben M.

    ----------------
    What are Software Patents for?
    To protect the small enterprise from bigger companies.

    What do Software Patents do?
    In its current form, they protect only companies with
    big legal departments as they:
    a.) Patent everything no matter how general
    b.) Sue everybody. Even if the patent can be argued
    invalid, small companies can ill-afford the
    typical $500k cost of a law-suit (not to mention
    years of harassment).

    Don't let them take away your right to program
    whatever you like. Make a stand on Software Patents
    before its too late.

    Read about the ongoing battle at http://swpat.ffii.org/
    ----------------
     
    Ben Measures, Feb 10, 2004
  8. Guest

    Ron Matthews Guest

    Relevant. You have to know the hardware differences between a mac
    and a pc to write system software.
    If the hardware is patented, then the hardware schematics are
    available to anyone. All a patent means is that it cannot be
    legally copied.
    Because you're wrong.
    You cannot write effectively in C if you don't know the hardware.
    Do you think it is possible to write a kernel w/o knowing the
    hardware?
    That's right. Most assembly is inlined in C code.
    Or simply searching the patent office, assuming the hardware is
    patented.
    Hardly. You can write your own kernel and charge whatever you want
    for it. Only free software, my ass.
    _You_ have taken the argument well beyond the boundaries of the
    original debate. I merely pointed out that learning linux teaches
    you no more about what your hardware is actually doing than
    learning windoze teaches. Those who claim they are "learning more"
    when they use linux are learning more about linux, not the computer
    itself. Learning linux helps you understand windoze as much as
    learning windoze helps you understand linux. IOW, windoze has the
    advantage because you don't have to learn as much to come to an
    identical understanding of how the hardware works.

    It that is being "polemic," then so be it.

    cordially, as always,

    rm
     
    Ron Matthews, Feb 10, 2004
  9. Guest

      Guest

    wrote:

    [snip]

    Please don't crosspost to six newsgroups.
     
     , Feb 10, 2004
  10. Here in comp.os.linux.x,
    (I R A Darth Aggie) spake unto us, saying:
    Reminds me of the Win95 startup screen I whipped together for a LAN
    party one year:

    http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/logo.sys

    Very rough, but it gets the message across. :)
     
    Richard Steiner, Feb 10, 2004
  11. Well, if you look carefully at the interior ring of a Windows CD,
    you'll see something very similar.

    James
     
    I R A Darth Aggie, Feb 10, 2004
  12. You might have to microwave it a bit before it shows.
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Feb 10, 2004
  13. Guest

    Synchrodude Guest

    Yea for 5 minutes, The you can see it.
     
    Synchrodude, Feb 11, 2004
  14. Have you noticed how they feel heavier too?
     
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Feb 11, 2004
  15. Guest

    Synchrodude Guest

    Synchrodude, Feb 11, 2004
  16. Guest

    NeoSadist Guest

    Mine works fine, as you can tell...
    1) Who said we want to become the dominant OS?
    2) Who said we want to compete with Windows? We are an alternative to
    Windows, and for those wanting open-source, programming experience, a very
    customizable OS, a more secure OS, or a more stable OS, we are already
    "winning".

    But in terms of competing toe-to-toe with Windows, we have a way to go, but
    not a long way by the looks of KDE 3.2....
    Uh, no, in my opinion that's NOT what we need. Either use Linux or Windows.
    True, right now one can't use Adobe Illustrator on Linux, but that might
    change. True, most games don't run on Linux (but I need to stop wasting my
    time playing them). But I think that cross-platform stuff like that is a
    waste of time. Use Linux for its strengths, use Windows for what you can't
    use Linux for. Right now, as an average home user, I have no problem using
    Linux for my stuff. But then again I'm one voice out of, say, one million
    Linux users?
    Why anyone would want to run IE on a Linux machine is beyond me, when
    Netscape and Mozilla, standards-compliant browsers, run just fine. IE has
    way too many security holes right now to be worth the time.

    But anyways, this article is old (21 JAN 2004) and the point has long been
    discussed. I say Linux try to be its own thing -- I'm already VERY happy
    with Slackware-current, and Windows can't beat it (in my opinion).
     
    NeoSadist, Feb 16, 2004
  17. Guest

    james Guest

    Everybody wants to get straight to using linux for entertainment. They
    get stuck on config issues, and that's really not surprising.

    It's funny to me, because they only think of sound and video as "output
    only" things. Consumer mentality. If they have this much trouble
    setting up sound *output*, I don't even want to think about them dealing
    with Jack or ALSA, trying to do multitrack recording, or video editing.

    There is also this underlying assumption that Linux "should" be easy to
    setup. It does happen to be extremely easy to setup (until you get to
    multimedia applications I guess, or hit the wall of unsupported
    hardware), but I don't agree that it "should" be easy, any more than
    I think a university physics course "should" be easy.

    I don't even understand where this whole "should" attitude developed in
    the first place. Or any of the attitude that leads to the subject line
    of this thread. The value assumption is that Linux needs to become
    anything that it is not already, or that it is not at the peak of its
    career (or perhaps even PASSED that point!) Those are assumptions that
    people place on it, but why?

    Linux already *IS* the major OS among free unix-like systems for the x86
    family of processors, and it may even be more than that. Where are you
    thinking it needs to "go", and why, and to whose benefit if it does, and
    to whose detriment if it does not? The only place where I start to
    agree with that sentiment, is where Linux needs to not be actively
    suppressed by hardware manufacturers.

    I don't think it's nearly as difficult or unfriendly as people like the
    OP make it out to be. It's somewhat less gratifying as a toy for the
    passive user, and that's arguably a weakness. What on earth drives such
    a user to linux in the first place? Do they just stick their feet in
    the water, find out it's cold, and then make a point of complaining
    about it?
     
    james, Feb 17, 2004
  18. Guest

    james Guest

    I'd be tempted to agree, but there is a surprising amount of depth to
    the Windows system. I love it when I see customizations that are
    supposedly impossible, for instance. I probably confuse "users" with
    "developers" and I'm blessed to not be forced to work with idiots.
     
    james, Feb 17, 2004
  19. Guest

    james Guest

    Baloney. I shift my automatic all the time. It helps a *LOT* to know
    about torque and how a transmission works, when passing, going up (or
    down) steep hills, etc.
     
    james, Feb 17, 2004
  20. Guest

    james Guest

    Extend the analogy to include all the tools in the machine shop as well
    as the patterns for the hypoid gears, and a forge to make them, and
    you're on the right track. More than just control, but a whole enabling
    umbrella.
     
    james, Feb 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.