How Hardware Companies Determine Their Linux Base

[deanjo]

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.

Ya and how is that 100% of the speed of the windows driver done? By bypassing the bottlenecks that are imposed with the "free" alternatives.

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

Nope usually you get a "There is an app that will do what you want it is called......."

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.

lol Compare OOo on windows and then compare it to linux. Massive speed differences in windows favor. Same goes Firefox. Then there is also items like CADs, multimedia software, anything specialized. Hell the applications don't even have to be that complex. Something as simple as bloody video transcoding app or a frame accurate nle eludes linux.

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.

Then in theory linux should be dominating shouldn't it? I also don't see linux or any other free OS development keeping the competition in mind. In fact it is quite the opposite with licenses like the GPL trying to prevent the competition from using their IP.

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.

FYI, PAE support in XP is as simple as adding /PAE to the boot.ini file.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Of course I can pay a programmer to develop any type of software as well open/closed for any OS. The beauty is that rarely if ever is needed as there is usually a solution already out there available.

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.

That is a completely unrealistic view. The real view is that people want their software/hardware to work for them not them to work for the software. Just as most people do not want to have to build or fix their tv, they just want it to work and they are willing to pay a qualified entity to have that peace of mind.

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.

You fail to see that people don't want to wait years after purchase to get that functionality. Just as someone wouldn't pay for well today to be dug 5 years from now when they could have running water from a tap today and usually at a cheaper price.

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.

Linux suffers from lack of innovation as well. Hell 3/4's of the time they are trying to get features and functions that have existed on other OS's sometimes a decade before.

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.

Their software is used more because IT IS BETTER AT ACHIEVING WHAT THE END USER WANTS. Not what some developer wants, not because of what some political view is, but because it delivers an end user experience that offers the flexibility and options that the end user finds desirable. As long as opensource developers keep developing in what interests them instead of the end user this will not change.

[curaga]

Same goes Firefox

No longer true, yesterday Mozilla had finally gotten a recent gcc, -O3 and profile-guided building all working on the linux builds. They'll only start shipping that with FF 6 though.

[pingufunkybeat]

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.

But this is the basic issue.

Linux which is not free is pointless. The whole strength of Linux (I'm referring to the whole ecosystem here: GNU, KDE, GNOME, LibreOffice, X, etc.) is that it is open.

If you don't care about open, then why aren't you using Windows? I mean, you're so convinced that it is better, and in some points, you are right. It really looks exactly like the OS you want.

I don't understand why you are trying to push us back to the time when we had to download WordPerfect trial edition, StarOffice and Netscape navigator, WinAmp for Linux and odd closed codecs just to use our computers? It's exactly the stubbornness about freedom and choice that freed us from that crap, just like it is freeing us from black magic blobs which prevent you from using the friggin hardware you bought.

You're on the losing side of history, deanjo Netscape, WordPerfect, Winamp and the likes bit the dust, and we have far superior free alternatives. You were there together with me, and you saw it happen. The blobs will become niche products for graphics and computation professionals, just like running MS Office and Photoshop through CrossOver on Linux is now. Most people will be happy with decent performance and stable drivers which work out of the box instead of performing obscure, semi-legal surgery on their kernels just to enable a graphical login screen.

[pingufunkybeat]

Then in theory linux should be dominating shouldn't it? I also don't see linux or any other free OS development keeping the competition in mind. In fact it is quite the opposite with licenses like the GPL trying to prevent the competition from using their IP.

This has to be the most ridiculous thing you've posted on this topic.

The GPL, which grants you rights to use and modify software prevents the competition from using the IP.

But copyrighted, patented code without any license is the exact opposite, and encourages the competition to use it.

This is pretty evident when you examine how many projects out there are using Microsoft's and Adobe's code in their software, as opposed to the GPL code, which nobody uses.

I'm speechless.

[deanjo]

If you don't care about open, then why aren't you using Windows? I mean, you're so convinced that it is better, and in some points, you are right. It really looks exactly like the OS you want.

That is the whole point. There is a crapload of stuff that one just cannot do in linux and this is why I have to keep a Windows install going. MS isn't forcing me to keep that install, it is the complete lack of any alternative in linux that is forcing me to.

I don't understand why you are trying to push us back to the time when we had to download WordPerfect trial edition, StarOffice and Netscape navigator, WinAmp for Linux and odd closed codecs just to use our computers?

Closed or open, bottom line is that they work. Period.

It's exactly the stubbornness about freedom and choice that freed us from that crap, just like it is freeing us from black magic blobs which prevent you from using the friggin hardware you bought.

Actually it is very much the opposite, those black blobs allow me to fully utilize the hardware I bought. The free alternatives however gimp the potential of the hardware .

You're on the losing side of history, deanjo Netscape, WordPerfect, Winamp and the likes bit the dust, and we have far superior free alternatives.

Actually Winamp and Wordperfect are still going but still the market has shifted. What did they shift to? Oh ya iTunes and MS Office.

You were there together with me, and you saw it happen. The blobs will become niche products for graphics and computation professionals, just like running MS Office and Photoshop through CrossOver on Linux is now. Most people will be happy with decent performance and stable drivers which work out of the box instead of performing obscure, semi-legal surgery on their kernels just to enable a graphical login screen.

Hardly, as long as software doesn't provide what end users want that software solution will always remain a niche.

[deanjo]

This has to be the most ridiculous thing you've posted on this topic.

The GPL, which grants you rights to use and modify software prevents the competition from using the IP.

Prevents the competition....... exactly.

But copyrighted, patented code without any license is the exact opposite, and encourages the competition to use it.

This is pretty evident when you examine how many projects out there are using Microsoft's and Adobe's code in their software, as opposed to the GPL code, which nobody uses.

There is a crapload of MS/Adobe code out there used in other projects. Have you looked at their SDK's?

I'm speechless.

That would be a bonus.

[pingufunkybeat]

Given that Intel is the undisputed king of desktop 3d, I expect that your estimates of how many people really need ultimate CAD performance at absolute 101% of the maximum diesel power are vastly exaggerated. Just like the vast majority of the people are not using 100% of their CPU and don't care, they won't care about 100% of the GPU performance ,as long as it is fast enough. What they will care about is stability, out-of-the-box operation, ease of upgrade, and similar things.

The popularity of the blobs can be directly traced back to the long-standing issues with the open stack (which have largely been addressed recently) and the lack of documentation and manufacturer involvement, which is also changing, at least with AMD.

Prevents the competition....... exactly.

No, dude, all the GPL projects steal code from each other all the time, and they are competing happily.

Nobody steals from Microsoft. In fact, MS is the very definition of anti-competitive behaviour.

Claiming that the GPL is more anti-competitive than Microsoft is far out, even coming from you.

[pingufunkybeat]

There is a crapload of MS/Adobe code out there used in other projects. Have you looked at their SDK's?

Beautiful red herring.

OK, I'll show you how to fork a GPL project and compete against it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libreoffice

Now you show me how I can fork MS Office and Photoshop and compete against them. This will be awesome

That would be a bonus.

Come on, ban me. You know you want to

[crazycheese]

Ya and how is that 100% of the speed of the windows driver done? By bypassing the bottlenecks that are imposed with the "free" alternatives.

Detecting and bypassing bottlenecks has nothing to do with code license! The completeness of the driver depends solely on: amount of hours is spend X mean average of professionalism of developer X amount of developers. Who should develop the driver? The manufacturer, right! How many manufacturers refuse to develop, support or simply polish windows version more than linux???! Is linux bad, because it is not involved in this? If you are ignored by group of people, are you BAD solely because of this?

Nope usually you get a "There is an app that will do what you want it is called......."

This is not related to the original question. The original question was about linux hackers to develop feature that you just want them to develop so. Which sane human would develop you features for free, spending his own money on electricity? Be realistic.
If you log on MSDN or whatever that crap is called with similar question, you will either be ignored, or someone will silently develop the feature, patent it and SELL it. Is this different with linux? No.

lol Compare OOo on windows and then compare it to linux. Massive speed differences in windows favor. Same goes Firefox. Then there is also items like CADs, multimedia software, anything specialized. Hell the applications don't even have to be that complex. Something as simple as bloody video transcoding app or a frame accurate nle eludes linux.

Yes I used Libre Office on windows in the workgroup(because it was full of shitista laptops with MSO crap and I could not do anything, but either run portable version of libre office(so much for security!) or save in ODF) and worked further on my gentoo machine. There was no difference! Maybe except some copies of MSO sometimes refused to open ODF generated on MSO from nearby, but lets forgive them that it is not new that microsoft ignores international standards if they don't belong to them.
Firefox is FINE on both windows and linux. CADs are FINE. Multimedia software is FINE as well as "anything specialised". Just check the comment from the first paragraph of my post. Audacity for example cannot use more than one cpu core on any task. It cannot use more than one core on windows, it cannot use more than one core on linux - you feel the difference?

Then in theory linux should be dominating shouldn't it? I also don't see linux or any other free OS development keeping the competition in mind. In fact it is quite the opposite with licenses like the GPL trying to prevent the competition from using their IP.

Lol, GPL does not prevent competition - show me where it is said so in the license. GPL is copyleft and prevents stealing of IP WITHOUT all that patent crap which you all of the sudden call "holy" here and "major block" on another comment. Deanjo, please decide yourself for the side, before you say something like that. Because my 42" Toshiba regza tv just loves linux kernel and gcc running inside of it and GPL seemed not to prevent toshiba take top scores on tests.

FYI, PAE support in XP is as simple as adding /PAE to the boot.ini file.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Of course I can pay a programmer to develop any type of software as well open/closed for any OS. The beauty is that rarely if ever is needed as there is usually a solution already out there available.

Nope, this key is useless.
PAE is enabled only on specific server versions - where microsoft allows it. For example, you cannot provide ANY 32bit process more than 2GB of RAM here of. Even if its compiled with so callled "LargePageSupport" - its useless. You can however reassign the 2GB/2GB userland/kernel division to 3GB/1GB via /3GB switch. But know what, right - hardware acceleration will be off as well as many drivers will fail to operate properly. Yet linux pae kernel works. Doesn't linux sucks and underdeveloped?

And of course you can pay the programmer, you are actually doing this when you purchase any "product". But when you purchase "product" the programmer gets around 5% of the sum you pay. Let me summarise it that way:
On opensource, if you want to have specific feature, you either:
- work on it itself
- join a group that work on it themself
- pay to person or group that work on it themself
- pay to organisation that works on it itself
- engage in other options of support, such as rising the attention of people that may be interested too
- PURCHASE a product that has this features(surprised?)

On closed source, if you want to have specific feature, you either:
- purchase a product that has this feature
- ask manufacturer (who in case of microsoft is the only one available) to add this feature in next version which you will be required to purchase, and pray that he actually implements it, let alone HOW he implements it may be totally different from how you wanted it to be implemented.
- *if you dont want a feature* you will still be forced to by next version, since previous versions will be not supported anymore

Now compare 999$ spending on target thing that interests you or 999$ spending over totally unrelated next version you are required to purchase anyway.

Because you should understand that in case of opensource development, you pay the developer directly. In case of closed source development, the original coder gets 7% hence he can only survive in india.

That is a completely unrealistic view. The real view is that people want their software/hardware to work for them not them to work for the software. Just as most people do not want to have to build or fix their tv, they just want it to work and they are willing to pay a qualified entity to have that peace of mind.

Yes, the infrastructure what you mention, as in connection between people wanting features and programmers doing that professionally is heavily and regularly damaged by microsoft on purpose. For example, the Nokia sabotage that resulted in destroying of Symbian, Meego and Nokia reputation was exactly on the period when ios, android(linux), blueberry and mentioned systems were to occupy and fight for the market - based alone on their features.
So what does microsheate?
Does it invent killerfeatures in WinMo? No.
Does it come to Nokia, Samsung etc and ask for WinMo phone line, so users can decide for themself the advantages of the platform? No.
This is development - the microsoft way. You don't need to prove you are better, you hideously eliminate opponent with 40 stitches and say it was suicide.

And by the way, my (originally) linux powered Toshiba TV worked without fixing or anything you mention.

You fail to see that people don't want to wait years after purchase to get that functionality. Just as someone wouldn't pay for well today to be dug 5 years from now when they could have running water from a tap today and usually at a cheaper price.

Waiting after purchase is not purchase, don't mix the terminology! It is "supporting the general development". Subscription model! Many people love subscription models, where they can jump off or jump in any time. Ask Michael! The "purchase" is nothing but "exchange" and again has nothing to do with closed or open dev model!
However the point that due to the patents(you seem to love) the opensource (and not only opensource) development is held for 20 years is valid, is done on purpose and has no relation to linux. Look, I don't want to wait 20 years for windows to become stable as linux is now, nor I want microsoft to learn manners in 20 years - hence I use linux (in different forms) NOW. Realistic enough?

Linux suffers from lack of innovation as well. Hell 3/4's of the time they are trying to get features and functions that have existed on other OS's sometimes a decade before.

I don't think so, I think linux is:
a) blocked from development
b) ignored without reason
c) suffers from lack of software amount
Don't tell me about features please, microsoft still cannot work with USB hubs correctly.

Their software is used more because IT IS BETTER AT ACHIEVING WHAT THE END USER WANTS. Not what some developer wants, not because of what some political view is, but because it delivers an end user experience that offers the flexibility and options that the end user finds desirable. As long as opensource developers keep developing in what interests them instead of the end user this will not change.

Thats true. But they develop what THEY want for THEMSELVES. Fair enough? Absence of methods to help PEOPLE COMMAND DEVELOPERS for money(purchase, subscribe, etc) is the reason you probably want to mention. There are also many windows-only things that are freeware or opensource so calling linux or opensource development unefficient because it is on linux - is wrong.

Right now there is microsoft, that steals and uses major fraction of money to block or sabotage the concurrence.
Do NOT pay microsoft.

There are also hardware manufacturers that help microsoft.
Do NOT pay them.

Pay - Linux instead. Or any cross-platform solution.

[crazycheese]

Closed or open, bottom line is that they work. Period.

Then, you fall under my "pretty narrowminded, egoistic persons" criteria, I mentioned before. Thats not bad at all, but people that act like this are VERY easy to manipulate. Remember how americans purchased land from native americans for several dollars? Do you know how Doog were enslaved by Ploxis in Star Control 3 using similar situation? With each such purchase, you doom yourself even more.

Of course, if there is no alternative solution available at all, and if there is no perspective at all (such as currently with gpu drivers), then you are pretty much monopolized and put on straight rails. By somebody and for a reason.