How Hardware Companies Determine Their Linux Base

[crazycheese]

It is not as skewed as you would think if you consider most windows users only upgrade their video drivers (if they do at all) from windows update.

Yes, ms did one good copy-paste job on package manager. Wait, they always copy-paste from BSD or Im missing something?

[deanjo]

Im missing something?

A grip on reality.

[chithanh]

But, to quote many kernel and X devs' thoughts: "who cares, we're getting paid anyway." Linux is not a business in the usual sense where the goal is to penetrate the market. The goal is to make Linux work for each company, that's why they pay devs to work on it. So it's not surprising that steps are not being made towards market penetration.

The classic open source "scratch an itch" analogy applies to both individual developers and companies.

• If it bothers you that software X does not properly support feature Y, then you write a patch to make it happen.
• If it bothers Novell that patent-encumbered Microsoft technologies can't be used on Linux, they write Mono and patches for OpenOffice.
• If it bothers Google that no mobile OS will send all users' data to them, then they extend Linux into one and call it Android.
• If it bothers somebody that Linux does not have enough marketshare, then he will start proposing things like stable kernel interfaces, rant against free software activists, and other such things.

[crazycheese]

A grip on reality.

Yes, so true. The hard reality striking in my face with dirty boots. Just as most of hardware companies do with linux. But with windows, no. They are so warm then, so many "preinstalled" users, happy to pay for insecure(av), limiting(eula), devouring(patents), unfair(eee-tactic), closed-source blackbox.

[crazycheese]

• If it bothers you that software X does not properly support feature Y, then you write a patch to make it happen.
• If it bothers Novell that patent-encumbered Microsoft technologies can't be used on Linux, they write Mono and patches for OpenOffice.
  
• If it bothers Google that no mobile OS will send all users' data to them, then they extend Linux into one and call it Android.
• If it bothers somebody that Linux does not have enough marketshare, then he will start proposing things like stable kernel interfaces, rant against free software activists, and other such things.

Windoze Phone and iphone have been phoning home (incl GPS or similar geoloc data) for ages. Just that you know.

[deanjo]

They are so warm then, so many "preinstalled" users, happy to pay for insecure(av), limiting(eula), devouring(patents), unfair(eee-tactic), closed-source blackbox.

Ya but the users are happy "it just works oob" instead of paying for something that is unsupported (various hardware), limited in refined software selection (many of the end user apps), political cares over end user needs (ie GPL), jedi mind tricks justifications ("you don't need that") 1/2 functioning box.

[crazycheese]

Ya but the users are happy "it just works oob" instead of paying for something that is unsupported (various hardware), limited in refined software selection (many of the end user apps), political cares over end user needs (ie GPL), jedi mind tricks justifications ("you don't need that") 1/2 functioning box.

Well, if its not external blocks that prevent oob support, it would be already available in linux.

I dont think that "you don't need that" argument will work - it may in windows or macos, but not in linux. And so much distributions..
Political cares are political - you can use and package any software license on CD, proven those license does not prevent it itself. That also defeats software selection argument.
Unsupported hardware is due to hardware manufacturers being either bribed, staying in cartel with ms or simply lacking resources due to their size.

So, why its not in linux box? Or more like.. why does it prevent itself to get into linux box?

[crazycheese]

Take an example of blizzard. Battle.net is linux powered for ages. Clients are windows only. So much people would like to see diablo or warcraft on linux! Why does blizzard ignore?

Is linux lacking on software infrastructure side? No.
Does it lack on driver side? Yes, thanks to AMD and Nvidia. But its external and can be sorted out. In the end they sorted out windows.
Does it lack.. distribution infrastructure? No.
Are there linux home users? Yes.

Why then? Its all Blizzard decision. You can't blame linux over things it has no power to change.

[deanjo]

Well, if its not external blocks that prevent oob support, it would be already available in linux.

Hardly, there is a shitload of hardware out there that the linux support only covers "basic baseline" support.

I dont think that "you don't need that" argument will work - it may in windows or macos, but not in linux. And so much distributions..

lol you can go to pretty much any linux mailing list and see tonnes of those answers in reply when someone wants to do something or asks for a feature found in other OS's.

Political cares are political - you can use and package any software license on CD, proven those license does not prevent it itself. That also defeats software selection argument.

Hardly there are many applications out there available in open source and closed in other OS's but linux ends up offering either nothing or a version so crippled or limited in functionality that you can say linux has no viable option.

Unsupported hardware is due to hardware manufacturers being either bribed, staying in cartel with ms or simply lacking resources due to their size.

So, why its not in linux box? Or more like.. why does it prevent itself to get into linux box?

Or a more realistic view is that the costs do not justify the financial gain of the company. Especially when that target is a constant moving one. Why do you think that the ones that do support linux support specified versions of a distro?

[crazycheese]

Hardly, there is a shitload of hardware out there that the linux support only covers "basic baseline" support.

Yes, is it linux problem that manufacturers do not write drivers, release documentation or simply react to questions regarding linux? The fact that nvidia driver works 100% speed that is on windows proves that linux is not a problem here, but rather companies themself.

lol you can go to pretty much any linux mailing list and see tonnes of those answers in reply when someone wants to do something or asks for a feature found in other OS's.

Yes, you tried going onto MS channel and asking that? That would be similar to what you suggest.

Hardly there are many applications out there available in open source and closed in other OS's but linux ends up offering either nothing or a version so crippled or limited in functionality that you can say linux has no viable option.

Openoffice has proven its application programmers decision, not linux itself not having any vital part to prevent it from happening. If programmers do not write software for linux, it will not write itself. One special case is the fact that linux software is to huge extent crossplatform, where windows software is windows only.

Or a more realistic view is that the costs do not justify the financial gain of the company. Especially when that target is a constant moving one. Why do you think that the ones that do support linux support specified versions of a distro?

Indeed costs always justify the gain, as famous chinese monk once said "there is no free dinner/energy", unless there is some trick.

You could pull huge credit in bank and then start flooding market at lowest price - effectively destroying any concurrence. When they are destroyed, you push in API that make others depend on you and thus force monopoly. When you have monopoly, you can pull money back. This was microsoft way since DR-DOS era.

The difference however is, when you pay redhat, you pay for the options you WANT.
If you don't like RedHat - you pay any opensource programmer for the options you WANT.
Now try to patch windows xp kernel to support PAE and then try to make it legal.

At short view, you are interested in things you want for buck. Just what egoistic or unaware people do (and they get catched after for limitied scope thinking). MS profits 99% here.
In longer view, you are interested in things that are stable over long scope. Because you pay for you want, linux is already more efficient here. You don't pay overpriced thanks to monopoly - you pay to developers or developing companies (on market with competition) directly.
In complete view, you look into what happens if you support further. I can tell you already, if you support microsoft - you support limits set on yourself. Today they gather patents, bankrupt other companies in sabotage ways, route technology they control to themself, bribe other companies. They are no way programmers or IT-innovators - they are ragdoll masters.

Their software is NOT used because its better, but because you either unaware, have no alternative or forced to use it; all because they intentionally made it so; again all because you supported them.