Linux is getting Crappier
in [Computers]
|
From: Gary R. Schmidt on 3 Nov 2009 07:02 Frank Slootweg wrote: [SNIP] > Even if the latter two requirements are met, you can and often still > will have a problem. Case in point: After a very long goose chase, > including 'help' from Linux zealots which said my problem didn't exist, > I *finally* found that my about-to-be-bought USB DVB-T tuner was > "supported", in the sense that that make and exact model number had been > tested. Just very shortly before buying it, I found out that the current > version of that tuner had a slightly different chip-set, which made the > device *not* work. If I would have followed the compatibility list(s), I > would have wasted my money on a non-working, non-returnable device. Yes, this is a really annoying problem - I've been bitten by it a few times with Solaris, you look up an item on the HCL, go and get it, and it doesn't work, because the %@$%##!&@^&* *manufacturer* has changed the internals but kept the same model number - or the other nasty one, where the manufacturer uses the same model number for different products in different places!!!! Cheers, Gary B-)
From: DanDanDan on 4 Nov 2009 04:16 > All in all, my efforts to try linux again have been met with > frustration. Vista isn't perfect, but at least it works. The ubuntu > "upgrades" have introduced more bugs. Fedora is absolutely useless even > for trivial tasks. And it appears that running anything with an ATI > graphics card, which is the standard graphics card in about 80% of > laptops, is a complete waste of time. I gave up along time ago. It isn't until you spend hours over the most simplist of problems that you realise that windows is worth the money just for the amount of time it saves you over linux. The main problem with linux is that no one is actually in control of anything. Linux has so many layers, kernal, x, gnome, gtk, application and on and on and on and each layer is coded by a small group of about 10 to 100 people. The more they progress the more they have to waste extreme amounts of time getting all the layers to work together. Linux will never go anywhere until there is some centralised control of their direction. Ubuntu can't do anything when they don't control the kernal, nor x, nor gnome, nor gtk, they essentially do nothing but box up whatever happens to be coded by a 100 groups of random people. And although they say its open and you can contribute, in reality, as the svn can show, only a few people are ever allowed to contribute. If you send in code they will just re-write it with a couple of characters changed so they don't have to put your name in the authors list. Just look at even simple programs like gnome games blackjack - still only 2 authors despite about 10,000 people submitting code for it - all rejected.... lol the whole thing is a joke. The only good open source software is always commericially backed and has huge centralisation, look at open office and firefox for example.
From: Nick Andrew on 4 Nov 2009 05:49 Frank Slootweg <this(a)ddress.is.invalid> writes: >Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt(a)acm.org> wrote: >> And "released decent drivers" can be replaced with "released >> specifications" or "released information not under a Non-Disclosure >> Agreement that prevents an open-source driver being written" and >> variations thereon. > Even if the latter two requirements are met, you can and often still >will have a problem. Case in point: After a very long goose chase, >including 'help' from Linux zealots which said my problem didn't exist, >I *finally* found that my about-to-be-bought USB DVB-T tuner was >"supported", in the sense that that make and exact model number had been >tested. Just very shortly before buying it, I found out that the current >version of that tuner had a slightly different chip-set, which made the >device *not* work. Vendors often do this, apparently. Specifically, they reuse an existing USB vendor and model ID for a new device with different and incompatible hardware inside it. Vendors can maybe get away with this because the Windows end-user is expected to install the device driver which comes with the device, whereas OSS developers have to write a device driver which works for _all_ the variants of the hardware. In real life this may mean that the actual "device driver" code pulls in modules for the actual hardware support based on what is discovered about the hardware at module load or hardware insertion time. So at the root cause it's basically another instance of "lazy vendor and/or under-documented hardware". I know that doesn't help much when you the consumer want to buy a device. All I can suggest is buy an expensive device from a good quality vendor like Hauppauge rather than an el cheapo Taiwanese no name clone. Nick.
From: Nick Andrew on 4 Nov 2009 06:17 "DanDanDan" <dandandan(a)dan.net> writes: >I gave up along time ago. It isn't until you spend hours over the most >simplist of problems that you realise that windows is worth the money just >for the amount of time it saves you over linux. Yawn. And using Windows is like walking in a field of daisies. Sure. >Linux will never go >anywhere until there is some centralised control of their direction. I don't think so. It's come from nothing to where it is today without this "centralised control" you believe is so important. The strength of OSS is in its decentralisation; if you don't understand that; you don't understand OSS. >The only good open source software is always commericially backed and has >huge centralisation, look at open office and firefox for example. I think you have been mis-informed. Firefox is owned by the Mozilla Foundation which is a non-profit corporation registered in California. OpenOffice was originally developed by Sun (StarOffice) but IMHO there are much better examples of OSS out there. Anyway, I'm having trouble making sense of your argument. You claim that Linux will go nowhere because there's no central management for the whole system (X, the kernel, filesystems and so on) and then you laud Firefox and OpenOffice for being centrally managed, but complain that centralised management won't accept patches from those outside the inner core. The people managing OpenOffice don't need to also manage the kernel; that would be ridiculous. Kernel development proceeds at an extreme pace without any input or feedback necessary from OpenOffice. Every couple of months there's a new kernel release and every new kernel release has major new features like new filesystems, support for more devices, performance improvements and so on. Linus ultimately controls what goes into the kernel but he doesn't tell developers what they should work on. The fact that this model works without a roadmap or KPIs puts the lie to the claim that traditional top-down plan/analyse/design/implement/test/release is required for success. Nick.
From: Frank Slootweg on 4 Nov 2009 09:31
Nick Andrew <nick(a)spamtrap.nick-andrew.net> wrote: > Frank Slootweg <this(a)ddress.is.invalid> writes: > > >Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt(a)acm.org> wrote: > >> And "released decent drivers" can be replaced with "released > >> specifications" or "released information not under a Non-Disclosure > >> Agreement that prevents an open-source driver being written" and > >> variations thereon. > > > Even if the latter two requirements are met, you can and often still > >will have a problem. Case in point: After a very long goose chase, > >including 'help' from Linux zealots which said my problem didn't exist, > >I *finally* found that my about-to-be-bought USB DVB-T tuner was > >"supported", in the sense that that make and exact model number had been > >tested. Just very shortly before buying it, I found out that the current > >version of that tuner had a slightly different chip-set, which made the > >device *not* work. > > Vendors often do this, apparently. Specifically, they reuse an existing > USB vendor and model ID for a new device with different and incompatible > hardware inside it. Vendors can maybe get away with this because the > Windows end-user is expected to install the device driver which comes > with the device, whereas OSS developers have to write a device driver > which works for _all_ the variants of the hardware. In real life this > may mean that the actual "device driver" code pulls in modules for the > actual hardware support based on what is discovered about the hardware > at module load or hardware insertion time. > > So at the root cause it's basically another instance of "lazy vendor > and/or under-documented hardware". I know that doesn't help much when > you the consumer want to buy a device. All I can suggest is buy an > expensive device from a good quality vendor like Hauppauge rather than > an el cheapo Taiwanese no name clone. My case wasn't a "no name clone", but Pinnacle, which is a major vendor of this kind of stuff. I would not call them "expensive", but buying an "expensive" device is rather silly, when there are perfectly good and working "cheap"er devices. Anyway, my main point is that add-on stuff - other than disks (and disk look-alikes) - is off-limits for a Linux desktop/notebook/netbook, unless Linux is *specifically* supported by the *device vendor*. |