Intel Reverts Plans, Will Not Support Ubuntu's XMir

[dee.]

As for Linux Mint, Mageia, etc.? No way is it reasonable to expect a computer novice to be able to pick up and work with those. Remember, the typical computer user is not impressed by Linux Mint's nifty driver selection tool because the typical computer user doesn't have a clue as to what a driver is in the first place.

What exactly makes Ubuntu any more easy to use than Mint? Mint is just as easy to set up, as it uses the same installer, and actually easier to use for someone coming from Windows due to having a more traditional UI with a bottom panel, start menu button, taskbar etc.

I've installed Mint for someone who's never used Linux before, on a laptop even, and they've had no problems working with it.

[Teho]

Redhat did not want to work with Canonical on upstart in the same way Canonical does not want to work with Redhat on Wayland.

You do understand that Wayland is not a Red Hat project but is primarily developed by Intel and Collabora in collaboration with at least five other companies?

[moilami]

This was a good killing blow. Hope it works.

[dee.]

Linux is not an operating system. Linux will never be an operating system. Linux is a kernel. Unless Linus merges a userland into his tree, a kernel is all that Linux will ever be.

Bluh bluh, you know what I meant, smartass.

[chrisb]

That's nonsense. Doing commercial development, you don't check in *anything* that hasn't been approved, no matter how senior you are. One, because unapproved development probably isn't what they're paying you for, and two, because code changes that management don't know about is a risk they can't plan for. Good developers may be scarce, but if they can't follow the process, they'll be out on the street...

In my experience, management don't care what you check in, what they care about is whether you are hitting the project targets on time for release. In fact, I never had a manager who watched the commits. What you say may be the case for internal software at some particular companies, but it is certainly not the case for all, and if the job involves merging patches from outside contributors then it is unlikely management are going to individually review everything that comes in.

[moilami]

Bluh bluh, you know what I meant, smartass.

But clueless people regarding the fact exist. They should not be misinformed because of your ignorance. No offence.

[chrisb]

You're the one that argued that there are no Linux desktops for sale because Microsoft is strong-arming vendors to prevent it from happening.

I think it's more likely that none are on sale because there is no market for them.

Both are true. There is no market because Microsoft strong armed vendors to prevent it from happening. In the nineties MS forced vendors to pay for an OS licence for every PC they sold, even if it was sold without an OS, or with a competing OS! Hence making alternatives economically unviable. Repeat that behaviour long enough and it becomes very hard for competitors to become established, which in turn reduces consumer demand for competing products ("network effect")

"The fact that there is a multitude of people using Windows makes the product more attractive to consumers. The large installed base... impels ISVs (independent software vendors) to write applications first and foremost to Windows, thereby ensuring a large body of applications from which consumers can choose. The large body of applications thus reinforces demand for Windows, augmenting Microsoft's dominant position and thereby perpetuating ISV incentives to write applications principally for Windows... The small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. (III.39?40)"

"One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed. In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...s_v._Microsoft

[chrisb]

Shelf space in a store is expensive, so only the most common machines will go there. You might be able to order one of those Dell Linux boxes, but why wait for the order-and WHY give the store your name and address. With all this NSA shit, cash and no name/no information is the only way to buy electronic hardware these days.

Who is going to wait for a custom order when they can buy a $100 cheaper (hardware level) machine than they would otherwise have bought to cover the Windoze Tax(or a Chrome OS machine), take it right out the door, wipe Windoze and install the distro of their choice. I would not consider a custom order for another reason as well: No way in hell I would alllow the vendor to know that I am the one buying or who bought a particular computer, given who I am (activist hostile to local regime) and all that NSA shit. Letting them know in advance would be just begging for a keylogging BIOS/UEFI. Instead, I would look at the laptops in question, make sure on the store's computer that there are no surprises in its UEFI setup and that the hard drive is NOT soldered down, and buy from stock. ChromeOS if they have it, otherwise Windoze 8. Pull the drive and boot into UEFI. Install my OS on the drive from one of my images of my installed OS, setup up the bootloader and drop it back into the laptop.

As for desktops, I would never buy one new, all of mine are either salvaged or custom built. I can build a desktop from parts, much less install onto a new netbook, faster than any store can deliver a custom order.

How do you know that the NSA or another gov org didn't backdoor your UEFI BIOS or network card firmware at the manufacturer? Instead of targeting you specifically, just target everyone. Given recent revelations it seems more likely. There are remote exploits for network card firmwares floating around http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.c...r-why.html?m=1 and there are exploits for the firmware in some keyboards eg the Apple USB keyboard exploit. How do you stop someone getting physical access to your keyboard? You can't be with it all day every day.

[dee.]

But clueless people regarding the fact exist. They should not be misinformed because of your ignorance. No offence.

I'm well aware of the facts, there's no ignorance on my part, so kindly take your baseless accusations elsewhere, thank you. It was, however, perfectly clear from context that we were talking about Linux-based operating systems. I also very much doubt anyone who reads this forum is unaware of the fact that Linux is a kernel.

I'm also not going to start writing "an operating system built on top of the Linux kernel" instead of "a Linux operating system" every time just because someone clueless might get the wrong idea.

[ryao]

You do understand that Wayland is not a Red Hat project but is primarily developed by Intel and Collabora in collaboration with at least five other companies?

I am already aware of that, but I was keeping what I said short. Anyway, Canonical wants to go their own route. Redhat did this with systemd versus upstart. The advantage of this that they avoid the red tape involved in collaboration, which is likely the exact reason Redhat decided to go its own way on systemd. They could have improved upstart, but it would have taken much more time to do that in a way that was mutually agreeable to both Redhat and Canonical. Canonical likely feels the same way about X, Wayland, etcetera.