06-12-2012, 12:40 AM
Linux, like NT and Darwin, is a hybrid kernel. That's why you have the option to modularise a lot of Linux when you build it from source.
Originally Posted by linux5850
06-12-2012, 01:21 AM
It's been clearly stated that modularization doesn't change the status of "monolithic" of Linux ... If you're gonna say that it's hybrid, make a full argument outside the modularization of the kernel.
Originally Posted by scottishduck
FFS, it's even in the Wikipedia, educate yourself → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel
06-12-2012, 03:00 AM
That's true of course, but I didn't mean graphic libraries, but stable APIs and ABIs. The point was they're not needed to bring attention of some very valuable companies. With Ubuntu LTS they're save for five years.
Originally Posted by gamerk2
06-12-2012, 03:05 AM
That's simply not true, because it's a hybrid kernel like many other OSes. It rarely breaks things. If you upgrade your kernel in Windows, OS X, BSD it doesn't break anything? That's kind of bullshit you stop writing about. You should be grateful you can upgrade your kernel while you consider it's something wrong...
Originally Posted by linux5850
06-12-2012, 03:17 AM
It wasn't clear how should they be called:
Originally Posted by vertexSymphony
06-12-2012, 03:19 AM
I agree with all the remarks about fragmentation, variable QA, over-rapid change. But all of those are fixable. Commercial users are free to avoid the bleeding edge and support a periodically frozen version. In fact, that is what anyone intelligent does (I know lots of industrial instruments that are running on carefully maintained older versions)
I think the biggest problem yet unsurmounted - and that would seem to be the point of this thread - is lack of marketing muscle. Apple, microsoft, SAP, Oracle are known fixed points in the businessman's mind. They are perceived to have an organising brain behind them, and since the 'presence' has been the same for decades, there is an image of resilience.
Coders - both originators and integrators - can solve the stability or functionality issues relatively easily (certainly far more easily than producing a system from scratch). It's not stability or functionality that affects business acceptance (how could it be - microsoft has flourished there) - it is perceptions of permanence and accountability.
06-12-2012, 04:26 AM
06-12-2012, 04:40 AM
Can't wait for same list from birdie but about Windows. He may write in this list something like No high quality open source NVIDIA and AMD drivers or Too many layers of abstraction (DirectSound, OpenAL, ASIO, WASAPI, KS) lead to the situation when the user cannot determine why his audio doesn't work.
06-12-2012, 05:31 AM
We are talking about Linux here, right? Have I ever said Windows is flawless? In fact I loathe Windows and try to never use it ;-)
Originally Posted by RussianNeuroMancer
You act like a loudmouth but what have you done for Open Source? I have helped to resolved over a hundred bugs, I've personally contributed to many Open Source projects and if you think I'm here to just criticize and nothing else - you are absolutely wrong. It's you who keep uttering inanities instead of contributing to the OS you so much like and adore. What's even funnier about you is that you are subscribed to some of bug reports mentioned in the wicked list of Linux deficiencies.
And can you please stop using bold text? I understand you want to shout out loud but Internet forums are probably not the best place for doing that. :-)
BTW the list of Windows problems will be 10 times shorter. Because other than a few f*ck ups called registry, zero files system hierarchy and no clean state, Windows is more or less perfect - © it just works.
Last edited by birdie; 06-12-2012 at 05:34 AM.
06-12-2012, 05:48 AM
(...possibly not doing myself a favor by replying before reading the whole thread, but here goes...)
Originally Posted by garegin
Gets in the way of what, exactly? If one's desire is to avoid making decisions, well then I suppose KDE would interfere with that, so fortunately there exists GNOME3, helpfully encumbered with pre-decisions that avoid all that pesky flexibility. GNOME3's zillion drags and clicks to navigate about one's workspace, combined with a paucity of configuration choices, sure do streamline one's workflow.
I am absolutely smitten with KDE. "Learn me, you bastard!" might certainly be its cost for entry, but then "I will bend to your will" is its luxurious payback. I devoted a few days to explore KDE's myriad offerings for extreme customization (none of which are notably necessary, TBH). My epiphay? This desktop rawks. The only aspect I now notice is just how fast I get shit done. KDE, as manifested via Kubuntu, has earned my loyalty.