nice commentary about opensuse
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 9:22 AM EDT |
First of all, nice blog. For whatever reason the blogging software most folks like to use is teh poo- all lardy and CPU-intensive and doesn't scroll nicely. Sheesh, it's just text, what's the problem? Your site behaves in a proper civilized fashion. "Guilt by association" is a fact of life, especially when the association is with someone as toxic as Microsoft. It's completely illogical and self-destructive to make nice with a rabid enemy. Enemies can turn into friends- but we have yet to see any signs of the microsoft overlords changing their policies towards Linux, and especially the GPL, in any way. They're still enemies. So much for Novell. But what about OpenSUSE? I appreciate your thoughtful blog posting, because the usual ignernt fanbois have been making the most noise so far. The same old crew who take personal offense at everything and never contribute a thing back to the community. Like the mighty legions of free-as-in-freeloaders who arose in a righteous dudgeon over Red Hat's discontinuing the free-beer Red Hat distribution. Poor dears. And look what happened- now they have no Red Hat freeloaders options at all, other than Fedora, CentOS, Pie Box, White Box, Tao, etc... or download the RHEL SRPMs and roll-their-own. Tragic. These are the same dorks who are erasing OpenSUSE from their lives forever, with much noise and fanfare. OpenSUSE is better off without them- "with friends like these..." "I don't want any bug report that I make to go into squashing bugs that will eventually end up in a Novell Desktop that is part of any payment of any kind to Microsoft. " Any FOSS code could suffer this fate- it's not limited to OpenSUSE. Of course OpenSUSE has a special relationship with Novell. I've heard a few rumblings about a Novell-free OpenSUSE fork. Perhaps that would be a good move? |
| azerthoth Jan 08, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
Nicely put TC. I happen to be in the crowd of people that has removed OpenSUSE from my lexicon as I said elsewhere and for the reasons spelled out in the blog post. What just caught my attention was the comment of a Novell free fork of OpenSUSE. While I am primarily a Debian (and derived) or Gentoo user I would happily pick up and start documenting such a distro. I would see it as I see using linux in the first place ... voting with my wallet and helping others do the same. Maybe even going through distro watch once a month just to help up the numbers on it. I would like to see it indeed, pre Novell SUSE was the first linux I ever used and what sold me in the first place. Someone find me a place to donate *grin* |
| dinotrac Jan 08, 2007 9:53 AM EDT |
>"I don't want any bug report that I make to go into squashing bugs that will eventually end up in a Novell Desktop that is part of any payment of any kind to Microsoft. " Hmmm...... So, maybe, Microsoft sets up -- oh, I don't know, maybe an insurance company. So, that company sells very reasonably priced insurance against IP litigation suits by any of a number (1 being a number) of vendor with whom it has negotiated -ummm - "royalty abatement" agreements. In order to hype awareness of its offerings, this new company offers a loss leader that you don't even have to sign up for...It will pay Microsoft $5 for every copy of Ubuntu sold or downloaded abd Microsoft will refrain from suing the buyer/downloader for a period of 1year. In return for the potential marketing lead, Microsoft pays this company $6.00. Still don't want to part of anything that is going to result in a payment to Microsoft? Rotten as Microsoft is, it is stupid to make all your life/management/computing decisions based on what Microsoft had done or is doing. Worse, pursued reliably enough, it gives Microsoft more power than any monopoly could ever do. lemmings running at the first sight of the letter "M" encourage Microsoft to look for increasingly disruptive places to stick their little toe. |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 10:33 AM EDT |
[kneejerk] Ack Ubuntu!! Ick puke!! shutup shutup shutUP!! > Rotten as Microsoft is, it is stupid to make all your life/management/computing decisions based on what Microsoft had done or is doing. Quite true, and much too much of that goes on. Still, it is equally unwise to ignore genuine threats, and I sympathize with the "I salt the ground you walked on" attitude, even if it's a purely emotional response. Some things are too distasteful to tolerate. azerthoth, if I were a SUSE user I'd probably dump it as a consequence of this deal too. I hope I would be as good as Devnet at explaining why, and not merely foamy :) |
| azerthoth Jan 08, 2007 10:36 AM EDT |
I see it differently. If companies note a trend in its customer or potential customer base fleeing from other companies getting in bed with microsoft they may just think twice about doing it themselves. Yes MS could take it in its head to dabble its fingers in other places to try and break companies, and its no secret that they have in the past. However as long as companies such as Red Hat have the intestinal fortitude to stand to their guns and tell MS to find a rope there will be hope. MS is a multiply convicted monopolist and they havent really changed their habits, it is now up to the consumer to exert whatever pressure they can on companies allowing those habits to continue since the courts have failed utterly in reigning it in. For that same reason I dont use Intel processors. They have been found guilty of unfair business practices as well. I believe in an open market, and if its reactionary to base my decisions upon questionable business tactics then I will wear that hat proudly. I spent close to 3 grand on personal equipment last year and nearly 100k in the course of my work. I can hope that I dont spend that much this year, but so far I am right on track to do so again. So to companies that want to get in bed with MS, I use my wallet to back up my beliefs. |
| jimf Jan 08, 2007 11:44 AM EDT |
>For that same reason I don't use Intel processors. What!... Intel is the one that's opened it's GPU code to Linux, and Intel is the one who shares a lot of its code. I'm not seeing much of that with AMD. Truth of the matter is that all of these OEMs consort with MS because, no matter what else you think of MS, they are still the biggest player. Bottom line is that all your personal 'preferences' are just that. |
| bigg Jan 08, 2007 11:55 AM EDT |
> it is stupid to make all your life/management/computing decisions based on what Microsoft had done or is doing. Amen to that. In fact, Ubuntu's bug #1 is the reason why I'm now a Debian user rather than an Ubuntu user. When hating Microsoft and supporting free software conflict, it's all too often the case that Microsoft is given priority. Perhaps the Debian developers do hate Microsoft, but hating Microsoft is not their priority. |
| dinotrac Jan 08, 2007 11:55 AM EDT |
>Still, it is equally unwise to ignore genuine threats, Yes. Microsoft is a genuine threat. I have a hard time seeing how opensuse is. For that matter, I have a hard time seeing how Novell is. I could be wrong about that, but will wait for the evidence. |
| azerthoth Jan 08, 2007 12:27 PM EDT |
>>What!... Intel is the one that's opened it's GPU code to Linux, and Intel is the one who shares a lot of its code. I'm not seeing much of that with AMD. Using that argument then one could say that MS could open source a small part of one of its projects that windows would then be acceptable and usable by the FOSS community. Intel has taken a baby step for which it should be applauded, during that same time it has released a processor that has DRM built into it. I ran into that one day trying to watch a video and couldnt because it wouldnt play without that specific family of processor. |
| tracyanne Jan 08, 2007 12:31 PM EDT |
quote:: it is stupid to make all your life/management/computing decisions based on what Microsoft had done or is doing. ::quote quote:: When hating Microsoft and supporting free software conflict, it's all too often the case that Microsoft is given priority. ::quote I haven't bothered to comment on the Novell, Microsoft deal, except to state, in a non technical forum, where I post and was asked about it, that I think it may be contrary to the terms of the GPL, and that Novell may find themselves in trouble down the track (as it turns out it's not contrary to the letter of the GPL, so in that respect it's quite legal - ethical, well that's another matter). Personally, I'd rather be spending my time finding ways to get more people using Linux than concentrating on how bad Microsoft is, and spending endless hours talking about it. The deals done, and like Jeremy Allison, the people working on openSuSE will do what their conscience dictates. |
| jimf Jan 08, 2007 12:43 PM EDT |
> Using that argument then one could say that MS could open source a small part of one of its projects that windows would then be acceptable and usable by the FOSS community. And you're saying one you shouldn't use either amd or intel... I guess that means that ATI and NVidia are out of bounds too. Virtually all the OEM hardware manufactures are dirty. At this point in history, it's all about gradually winning them over. |
| tracyanne Jan 08, 2007 1:03 PM EDT |
quote:: I guess that means that ATI and NVidia are out of bounds too. Virtually all the OEM hardware manufactures are dirty. At this point in history, it's all about gradually winning them over. ::quote With Linux's measly market share, I'd rate that as next to impossible. |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 1:08 PM EDT |
> With Linux's measly market share, I'd rate that as next to impossible. When are you going to include some facts in your opinions? |
| herzeleid Jan 08, 2007 1:19 PM EDT |
I advocate a two-handed approach. Work on open source drivers by all means, and encourage vendors like Intel who have opened their specs to the point where a laptop with Intel graphics and network chips is fully functional with FOSS drivers. Pursue by diplomatic means the opportunities to help other vendors do the same and more. On the other hand, I would use anything and everything currently available to enhance Linux performance and functionality, even if the licensing is not our preferred type. So, if I have a Linux workstation with nvidia graphics and I want decent performance (and if I didn't want decent performance, why would I be running Linux?) I'll gladly use the nvidia drivers, if there are no FOSS alternatives. The big thing IMHO is enjoying full functionality, and not deliberately crippling Linux due to religious objections. True freedom, as dino pointed out, means the freedom to use Linux for *all* my computing activities. If I have to turn away from Linux and use a windoze peecee to run google earth, play doom 3 or watch movies, because I fear persecution, or even prosecution from the zealots for the sin of loading the binary blob, that's not freedom, but the opposite of freedom. |
| jimf Jan 08, 2007 1:39 PM EDT |
> I advocate a two-handed approach. Work on open source drivers by all means, and encourage vendors like Intel who have opened their specs to the point where a laptop with Intel graphics and network chips is fully functional with FOSS drivers I agree, that's a practical start. > On the other hand, I would use anything and everything currently available to enhance Linux performance and functionality, even if the licensing is not our preferred type. That's a very slippery slope. The user can of course do as his conscience dictates. The distributor... well, that's a different matter. While I would support the inclusion of automatix and the like (with a warning) in a Distro, I really feel very uncomfortable about having proprietary binary blobs as a part of any Distro. I really want the user to have to make the choice, and hopefully, think about it. |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 1:46 PM EDT |
I've read Jono Bacon's (overlong and circuituous) blog entry, and a lot of stuff by Kevin Carmody, and other folks who are all now chanting "Linux market share at any cost = future freedom." What none of them have said is how will this brilliant plan work? It's just hand-waving, and I think it's deliberate to disguise their real goals, which are to increase their own market share, period. Which is fine and dandy- why not be honest about it? I am not hearing anything to support this magic equation. Like "Vendor A says when we have X number of users, they will open-source their drivers." Or "Vendor B will open-source their codecs when these conditions are met: foo, blah, and blee." Closed code has been opened up before, and vendors have been persuaded to support non-windoze platforms- how did this come about? They should be able to cite some examples of where waving a magic number of users about caused a vendor to open their code. But they can't, because that's not the reason vendors open their code. herzeleid, you're making the same mistake a lot of folks make- you're confusing user's choices with making more choices available. Putting pressure on Nvidia, for one example, to open source their drivers has nothing to do with what you should be be using, except for trying to give you more actual choices. Whatever you decide is your business. If you don't have choices in the first place, you know who to thank, and it's not the folks who are working for more free/open software. |
| herzeleid Jan 08, 2007 1:47 PM EDT |
> That's a very slippery slope. I don't know if it's a slippery slope - you make it sound like we linux users started off in fat city and have been sliding towards oblivion. In actuality, we started in the stone age, off the radar, and have clawed our way to an increasingly respectable market share over time. > The user can of course do as his conscience dictates. The distributor... well, that's a different matter. While I would support the inclusion of automatix and the like (with a warning) in a Distro, I really feel very uncomfortable about having proprietary binary blobs as a part of any Distro. I really want the user to have to make the choice, and hopefully, think about it. I understand - but that brings us back to the old criticism "why can't linux just work?" Joe six pack and aunt Mildred both ask, "why do I have to endure these threats and scares and jump through hoops, and be treated like an outcast, just to get acceptable video performance?" |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
>I understand - but that brings us back to the old criticism "why can't linux just work?" Joe six pack and aunt Mildred both ask, "why do I have to endure these threats and scares and jump through hoops, and be treated like an outcast, just to get acceptable video performance?" Um, what?? If your uncle Joe and aunt Mildred are receiving threats, call the cops. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 08, 2007 3:16 PM EDT |
> I understand - but that brings us back to the old criticism "why can't linux just work?" Joe six pack and aunt Mildred both ask, "why do I have to endure these threats and scares and jump through hoops, and be treated like an outcast, just to get acceptable video performance?" You mean, as opposed to the threats, scares and hoops those same people get using the same stuff on WIndows? The only difference is that Windows users are trained^Hconditioned to ignore EULA's. The fact that the threat comes with a nice "I accept" button doesn't lessen the threat. |
| herzeleid Jan 08, 2007 3:17 PM EDT |
Quoting: Um, what?? If your uncle Joe and aunt Mildred are receiving threats, call the cops.Refer to the recommended "warnings" earlier in the thread. also, you may or may not have heard about the threats of criminalizing binary drivers. LOL, that is TEH SUCK |
| dinotrac Jan 08, 2007 4:34 PM EDT |
>ike "Vendor A says when we have X number of users, they will open-source their drivers." Or "Vendor B will open-source their codecs when these conditions are met: foo, blah, and blee." TC - You are old, spoiled, and short of memory. It wasn't that many years ago that open-source drivers weren't an issue because we didn't have closed-source drivers top complain about. Perhaps the Linux-kiddies, those who have jumped aboard the bandwagon in the last few years, should go back in time to learn about the first great Linux driver issue. It wasn't video cards. It was printers and scanners. Don't you remember the bad old days? I still remember taking an HP back to the store when I learned that the new model had deviated from the old (linux supported) HP scanner language for new good reason that I've ever been able to determine. Lexmarks were strictly black marks. If you wanted fancy printers, it was postcript or nothing. And then, back in 1999, Robert Krawitz bought an Epson Stylus Photo printer. The first step on the road to Gimp-Print (now GutenPrint) was taken. Epson provided varying degrees of cooperation - certainly more than HP, Lexmark and Canon. After taking back that HP scanner, I bought an Epson Scanner and Stylus Photo 870. Both worked beautifully with Linux. I always recommended Epson products to friends. Still do. Force of habit. Now, of course, HP, Lexmark, and Canon have joined the club because...well, it just makes business sense. It doesn't hurt that there is actual competition in the printer business, either, or that the real money in inkjets comes from ink, not printers, and certainly not from drivers. A footnote to that tale: Just before year-end, my wife and I replaced the business's 870 with a brand-new Epson R380. Went straight to Gutenprint and discovered, to my horror, that the R380 was not supported. Sent an e-mail to Epson asking if the control codes were available, and they directed me to Epson Avasys, producer of free (as in libre) drivers for Epson printers. Sure enough, I found a driver for my printer -- and source code to go with it. Not as slick or full-featured as the Windows driver, but prints Beautifully. Better still, checking back on Gutenprint, I see support of my printer is a high priority item. The moral of this story: In the long run, it doesn't make business sense to write code you don't have to. If you can gain market share more or less for free, that's a good deal, and a profitable one, too. What the vidcard market needs is at least a third competitor with the cash to stick around. You see, even a measly 3-5% of total users is a big coup for a company with 20% market share. 3% of the total market represents 15% growth to a company like that. A new card-maker, determined to put out a good product -- one within shouting distance of the leaders -- and courting Linux users could build a mighty strong business. They could also build a lever against the current Big Two. |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 4:46 PM EDT |
>TC - You are old, spoiled, and short of memory. You sweet talker. I didn't know you cared. :) |
| dinotrac Jan 08, 2007 5:14 PM EDT |
>You sweet talker. I didn't know you cared. :) Now you know! |
| jimf Jan 08, 2007 5:14 PM EDT |
> TC - You are old, spoiled, and short of memory. Consider who's talking :D |
| devnet Jan 08, 2007 6:00 PM EDT |
notice dino didn't say balding...that's reserved strictly for himself :D |
| dinotrac Jan 08, 2007 6:03 PM EDT |
>notice dino didn't say balding...that's reserved strictly for himself Nope. I'm fatting, not balding. |
| tracyanne Jan 08, 2007 6:41 PM EDT |
quote:: When are you going to include some facts in your opinions? ::quote I think we all agreed in an earlier thread that Linux's Market share is considerably less than Apple's. I fail to see the need to repeat my self. Linux's market share is by anyone's definition, that I'm aware of, measly. That means the proprietary sector of the industry will be singularly unimpressed by any requests or demands that any one, or group of, Linux users, Distributors, evangelists make. |
| herzeleid Jan 08, 2007 6:48 PM EDT |
Quoting: I think we all agreed in an earlier thread that Linux's Market share is considerably less than Apple's. I fail to see the need to repeat my self. Linux's market share is by anyone's definition, that I'm aware of, measly.I must have missed that - from everything I've seen, linux market share on the desktop is in the same ballpark as that of apple, and in the server room of course, linux market share dwarfs apple. I do agree though, that the mass desktop market share of linux is not high enough that vendors could be threatened into submission, as they are by microsoft on a regular basis, so some diplomacy and patience are called for. |
| jimf Jan 08, 2007 7:30 PM EDT |
> diplomacy and patience are called for. Either that, or we could get a mob with shotguns :D |
| dcparris Jan 08, 2007 7:56 PM EDT |
> I think we all agreed in an earlier thread that Linux's Market share is considerably less than Apple's. We did? I remember TC arguing that Linux holds a larger market share than Apple. Actually, I'm inclined to agree with her, especially in light of the numbers of government and educational institutions migrating, not to Apple, but to GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux' multi-platform capability and affordability suggest to me that it is more common than Apple, even if only by a slim margin. Fedora hits over 1 million downloads in less than 2 months, and that's just one version of a single distro, and probably only the known downloads. What's more, many people still dual-boot. The only way you could argue that GNU/Linux has less market share than Apple is if you count the number of GNU/Linux-only households. Even then, I think it would be a fairly close call. So, I haven't agreed on any such thing. I would be willing to bet that, if some of the dual-boot folks dropped Windows - and informed MS - it would be a real eye-opener. |
| jimf Jan 08, 2007 8:01 PM EDT |
> I would be willing to bet that, if some of the dual-boot folks dropped Windows - and informed MS - it would be a real eye-opener. Maybe not a mob with shotguns, but close :D |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 8:08 PM EDT |
MS knows- that's why they're flailing about so wildly, with all the daft patent threats and get the 'facts' and astroturfing and buying as many Congress- and Parliament-critters as they can, and why they made such a strange deal with Novell. |
| herzeleid Jan 08, 2007 8:09 PM EDT |
Quoting: What's more, many people still dual-boot.Seriously, that is really sad. I stopped dual booting in 1995. |
| jimf Jan 08, 2007 8:11 PM EDT |
> Seriously, that is really sad. Still, better than not running Linux at all. |
| tuxchick Jan 08, 2007 8:14 PM EDT |
> Seriously, that is really sad. That's right. Modren geeks virtualize. Rebooting is sooo last-millennium. |
| jdixon Jan 09, 2007 2:37 AM EDT |
> I think we all agreed in an earlier thread that Linux's Market share is considerably less than Apple's. I'll back herzeleid. tuxchick, and dcparris on this. I think Linux has a base at least as large as Apple's, and probably larger. |
| jdixon Jan 09, 2007 2:54 AM EDT |
> Modren geeks... Ah, a new sect. What do you have to do to qualify? :) |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 09, 2007 3:28 AM EDT |
>I'll back herzeleid. tuxchick, and dcparris on this. I think Linux has a base at least as large as Apple's, and probably larger. Substantially larger, IMO. Apple claims about 15 million users. And their servers, while kinda nice, are a little bloated because it's pretty much the same OS as the workstations. |
| dinotrac Jan 09, 2007 4:12 AM EDT |
>Apple claims about 15 million users. I've seen that said before and it turned out to mean something other than the Apple installed base. I use Linux as my full-time desktop, but I would bet there are more full-time Apple users than full-time Linux users. Some interesting notes on the vitality of the Apple Desktop: Recently released Web statistics (see http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewA...) show use of the Safari browser growing from 3.1 % to 4.2 % over the last year. That's more than 33% growth in one year. Pretty healthy. That also means that Apple had at least 4.2% of the users measured, as Safari is Apple-only. Other browsers can be and are used on Apple, but we'll pretend Safari=Apple for the sake of this discussion. Various flavors of IE were at 79.6%, and we'll let that = Windows for now, even though I know some enterprising souls will diddle user agents to get into stupidly coded websites. That leaves about 15% that could be just about anybody or anything. They are Opera, Firefox, and Netscape users. As Opera and Firefox are browsers of choice for more sophisticated users, I will presume a much higher percentage of Linux users than the norm -- say 25%. That would mean Apple=4.2% and Linux=3.75%. You can argue the numbers all you want, especially as this was a back of the envelope exercise. I doubt that 25% of all Firefox users are Linux users, but, what the heck. At any rate, whether the actually Apple count is a little lower or higher or the Linux count is a little lower or higher, the only way to conclude that Linux desktops outnumber Apple desktops by any appreciable margin is to deceive yourself just because you so desperately want it to be true. |
| devnet Jan 09, 2007 5:38 AM EDT |
I think the reason there are no real numbers for Linux is because Microsoft doesn't want there to be real numbers... Real numbers = real threat. When you define something and give it a name, you have something to fear. When it is the big 'unknown' you can lump it in with other things you've defined and feel safer because you have one less thing to fear. |
| jdixon Jan 09, 2007 6:16 AM EDT |
> ...the only way to conclude that Linux desktops outnumber Apple desktops by any appreciable margin... From previous comments, I don't think dcparris, tuxchick, or myself are arguing "any appreciable margin" here Dino. Merely that it's greater than or equal to. I can't speak for herzeleid, as i haven't read enough of his comments on the matter. |
| tuxchick Jan 09, 2007 8:51 AM EDT |
OK, now we're going all fuzzy and making confused comparisons. The total number of Unix-type operating systems in all categories- server, desktop, network devices, and whatever else you can think of outnumbers Windows. It always has. Yet Unix/Linux have always been the unwanted stepchildren to hardware vendors. It wasn't that long ago that Unix users had to pay a premium for custom network card drivers. Yep, the same old cruddy Ethernet adapters that Windows lusers could pick up cheap, with drivers. It doesn't do any good to separate into desktop, workstation, server- that just weakens the position of the "more users = more clout" argument. There isn't anything that's unique to any category. I know, someone is going to argue "but multimedia only belongs on desktops." Feh. Go shoot yourself in the foot somewhere else, please. If you're going to argue that market share = clout, then count all users. Because that's the legitimate measure, not some nitpicky categorization. Because real Unix/Linux admins in the real world move machines around according to need. The desktop PC of today is the file server of tomorrow. The hotrod Windows laptop with all the bells and whistles gets turned into a hotrod Linux development box. I just purchased a batch of ASUS mobos for a customer that are going into both servers and workstations. These mobos have everything onboard- sound, video, GigE, etc. We got a nice discount for buying the batch, and we have all the flexibility we want to move these beasts around as we need. Some will be windoze boxes, some will be Linux. Our hardware has to be supported cross-platform, and we don't want to have the OS tied to the hardware, despite Microshaft's desires to the contrary. That's just one example of the fallacy of ghettoizing the desktop category. And even if a person finds it useful to do so, then you have to include Mac OSX, because the drivers and codecs are virtually the same. It's a lot shorter step from Mac to Linux than it is from Mac to Windows, yet you see many vendors supporting Mac and Windows. But not Linux. A single codebase for Unix-type systems will support a larger number of users than a Windows driver. It isn't even possible for a single windoze driver to support all windozes- most vendors don't bother with anything older than Windows 2000. And now we have Vista which breaks both hardware and software applications right and left. That's why I think that Ubuntu's argument that they need to include non-free guff by default, instead of using the traditional method of putting it in a separate repo apart from the free repos, is bushwah. We already have the numbers. I'm bored with hearing the "embracing non-free software produces free software" song. What's the plan? How does this magic occur? As someone posted somewhere else on LXer, if Ubuntu gets ten million users using Nvidia and Flash and non-free codecs, where's their leverage for change when there are no alternatives? |
| dcparris Jan 09, 2007 8:57 AM EDT |
I would argue for an equivalent or slightly higher market share for GNU/Linux. dino matched what I said, as far as the full-time users are concerned. I think that would be the only way to demonstrate that Apple has a larger market share. Even then, I wonder by how much? |
| tuxchick Jan 09, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
What difference does it make if users are full-time, or multi-boot, or whatever? We still want everything to work. |
| dcparris Jan 09, 2007 9:42 AM EDT |
That's true, TC. |
| dinotrac Jan 09, 2007 9:44 AM EDT |
>We still want everything to work. But only up to a point, in some cases. Some of us draw the line at binary drivers, some of us don't. |
| bigg Jan 09, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
Shouldn't we be looking at market size rather than market share? Apple has done very well the last year, but I'm not sure that means Linux is a less-profitable market to support. If the million Fedora users were all the Linux/Unix users in the world, and Nvidia gets half of the market, by my calculations, that is 500,000 customers. That seems to be a lot of customers to ignore even if it is like 0.05% of the Windows market. Just curious what is the share of the market for, say, blind computer users? |
| dinotrac Jan 09, 2007 9:52 AM EDT |
>but I'm not sure that means Linux is a less-profitable market to support. Apple has some advantages. Apple is Apple. Linux is Debian, Fedora, opensuse, Mandriva, yada, yada, and yada. That's got to be easier for manufacturers to deal with. One place to turn to, one place to worry about. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 09, 2007 10:01 AM EDT |
Quoting: That's got to be easier for manufacturers to deal with. One place to turn to, one place to worry about. one ring to find them and in the darkness bind them... ;-) |
| tuxchick Jan 09, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
dino, not quite. That's one selling point of open-sourcing drivers- the distribution maintainers take on the job of packaging them. |
| dinotrac Jan 09, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
>dino, not quite. Yes. You and I both know that. Experience with printers and scanners highlights the fact. The Video Card manufacturers haven't progressed to that point yet. The saps. |
| tracyanne Jan 09, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
quote:: It wasn't that long ago that Unix users had to pay a premium for custom network card drivers. Yep, the same old cruddy Ethernet adapters that Windows lusers could pick up cheap, with drivers. ::quote The fact that those are now well supported for Linux - Server and Desktop - is because Linux as a Server has such a large market share. When it comes to technologies, 3D for example, which are not useful on the server, they are not well supported for Linux. The reason for this, the lack of market share for Linux as a Desktop. When the manufacturers are convinced that they will loose their market share by not supporting Linux on the Desktop, they will support Linux on the Desktop. When they are convinced that not opening their drivers or their CODECs will loose them market share, they will open their drivers and CODECs. They will only be convinced of that when Linux on the Desktop has sufficient Market share. The solution to the problem of convincing the manufacturers that they will loose market share is to get more Market share for Linux on the Desktop (enough that the manufacturers need Linux on the Desktop, for product sales, as they currently need Linux on the Server), is to get more people using Linux as their preferred Desktop OS. One solution to this is to make all those proprietary CODECs and Drivers, that Microsoft users are currently familiar with, available to new Linux Desktop users in a form that is easy for them to install (as I have mentioned, in other posts). Microsoft users are conditioned to install extra drivers etc from a CD which accompanies Hardware, so this is how, I believe, it should be done. If anyone has a better, realistic solution, that leverage's current non Linux users (Mr and Mrs Joe Public) expectations, please let me know. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 09, 2007 2:11 PM EDT |
>Mr and Mrs Joe Public Rockeaters can keep using Microsoft. I don't personally want them using Linux. They don't use Macs and Apple is fine without them, Linux will be fine, too. We need someone like Sun producing boxes for the discriminating *nix crowd, something for the high end without being for the elite or for people serving a billion files a second. Sun could make a buck, and any drivers that work well with Solaris would (at least I think they would, IANAP) work well with Linux. The fact that Linux works well with old hardware makes a difference, also. I don't need the fancy new stuff (although I regularly drool over it) because that old POS that I found out next to the garbage works fine. It's actually a pretty good little box. My three year old Dell keeps chugging along, as does the six year old Dell on top of it. Nvidia isn't very motivated to open source drivers for six year old cards. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 09, 2007 2:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:When it comes to technologies, 3D for example, which are not useful on the server, they are not well supported for Linux. The reason for this, the lack of market share for Linux as a Desktop. This makes for a nice thought: Will high-end 3D cards on the server be required to publish Vista applications from the Longhorn server to the Vista desktop because of the Aero UI? If so, we can expect high-end 3D cards to appear in server and as a consequence, FLOSS drivers -- because those same servers will need to run Linux. That last part is now becoming especially true with the virtualisation hype. What a story that would make. Vista Aero and virtualisation being responsible for open-sourcing 3D drivers :-) |
| tracyanne Jan 09, 2007 6:23 PM EDT |
quote:: What a story that would make. Vista Aero and virtualisation being responsible for open-sourcing 3D drivers :-) ::quote nice thought. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 09, 2007 10:09 PM EDT |
And very realistic. The reason Linux started working so well on laptops is because all the new-fangled blade-servers use a lot of laptop components. Same story, different hardware :-) |
| tracyanne Jan 09, 2007 11:32 PM EDT |
quote:: And very realistic. The reason Linux started working so well on laptops is because all the new-fangled blade-servers use a lot of laptop components. Same story, different hardware :-) ::quote Now you are starting to get it. This is what I've been saying all along. It's due to the fact that the manufacturers see an advantage to them in supporting Linux Servers, because Linux Servers have a large Market share. The fact that Desktop Linux - on Laptops - benefits is a fortuitous accident. They did not set out to support Desktop Linux on any platform, they set out to support Linux Blade Servers. Linux Servers don't need high end Graphics cards, so there is no reason for the manufacturers to support Linux with high end graphics cards. Maybe Linux Distributors should make it necessary that all Linux Server run with the latest 3D desktop. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 09, 2007 11:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:Linux Servers don't need high end Graphics cards, so there is no reason for the manufacturers to support Linux with high end graphics cards. Yeah, but the question remains: Will Vista/Longhorn servers require 3D cards? |
| tracyanne Jan 10, 2007 3:25 AM EDT |
quote:: Yeah, but the question remains: Will Vista/Longhorn servers require 3D cards? ::quote I don't see why they would, Vista runs quite well, without the foofery, on low end video Cards, as indeed does any other version of windows. You go Control Panel -> System -> Advanced -> Performance Settings and in the Performance Setting popup, in the Visual Effects Tab select Adjust for best performance. This sets a Windows 95/98 style desktop. As far as I'm aware that's how most Windows Sys Admins run Windows Servers. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!