Originally posted by deanjo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
ReactOS May Begin Heavily Using Wine Code
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Remco View PostOh there are certainly a lot of companies that do driver maintenance right. NVIDIA and ATI for example. But many companies will at some point just stop porting over their drivers to the new system. The new products will work fine, but the old ones are not important anymore. I have had a scanner, a USB-LAN bridge, and even a LAN card turn into a brick because the vendor couldn't be bothered to support it right.
Comment
-
Originally posted by drag View PostNot everybody likes the way Unix works. ReactOS guys typically like Free software and open source, but don't like Unix. Think of ReactOS attempting to do to Windows that GNU did to Unix.
With Windows all you have is a proprietary reference implementation, and the implementation must prioritize compatibility over function, at least initially.
For these reasons you both shouldn't, and couldn't do to Windows what Gnu did to Unix. Its more reverse engineering than implementing. If you don't like Unix, You'd be far better off starting from scratch with your own concept, unless of course you think Windows is the most ideal of possible operating systems...
Comment
-
Originally posted by RemcoYes, Linux now supports more hardware than Windows ever will. The problem is that it's never the question how much hardware your OS supports, but whether it supports the particular hardware that you have.
But there is some slippery of logic or perhaps focus going on. I'm going to assume that he is right in his assertion that Linux suports more devices than any other OS (he claims to have an independent source but doesn't cite it). Now, this can only mean one of the following: a) I, and others around me, have had real bad luck with our hardware in Linux, while very good luck with our hardware in Windows; or b) we are talking about different things.
The first option being possible, the easiest explanation is the second one. Notice how Greg quickly jumps to the usual "Linux is 80% of the world's top 500 super computers right now and we're also the number one embedded operating system today". This is good, but it's not what concerns me the most, and it's not what I was talking about, especially in the context of hardware support of an OS like ReactOS. So to be clear, what I have in mind is desktop PC hardware, not supercomputers, mobile phones, wireless routers or electric screwdrivers. Of course, you may not have the same interests, but I'm pretty sure that this forum is full of people whose primary concern is related to the PC desktop market. Thus, that Linux supports a hell of a lot of all types of hardware devices doesn't translate to Linux having better support than Windows for the devices that me and Joe Average are interested in.
Following this line of though:
Originally posted by Greg K-KThe thing about drivers is the vast majority, the number doesn't matter. You only care about what you have so it becomes personal. What you have is a very small number of devices.
Originally posted by dragThe only thing that matters is the hardware support for what people actually use.
Having said this, it's clear that Linux hardware support has improved a hell of a lot very quickly. I remember not so long ago an interview with A. Cox (pretty sure it was him) where he stated that Linux wasn't meant for laptops...
Comment
-
Originally posted by yotambien View PostHahah, yeah, maybe he did. But still is not a very good argument. When you consider that most people have Windows because it came installed with their systems you have to wonder what 'out of the box' means. Sure, a Windows installation CD may have less drivers than a Linux one (I don't know), but how many people actually has to install Windows this way?
Then, it's funny how the very same people that grab code from git repositories and compile the hell out of their drivers to have basic acceleration then complain about downloading Windows drivers off the manufacturer's site. Go figure : )
On topic:
Does it mean Windows version of Firefox installed in ReactOS will be faster then native one in Linux? Afaik Firefox is much faster in WINE then running native...Last edited by kraftman; 19 January 2010, 07:08 AM.
Comment
-
-
Linux Firefox in inherently slower than Windows Firefox. Optimization has nothing to do with it. It's because some code is different between platforms and the Linux specific code doesn't get as much attention as the Windows one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostLinux Firefox in inherently slower than Windows Firefox. Optimization has nothing to do with it. It's because some code is different between platforms and the Linux specific code doesn't get as much attention as the Windows one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by yotambien View PostThat link made for an interesting reading. Surely Greg sounds very positive and manages to transmit it (I'm not being funny here).
But there is some slippery of logic or perhaps focus going on. I'm going to assume that he is right in his assertion that Linux suports more devices than any other OS (he claims to have an independent source but doesn't cite it). Now, this can only mean one of the following: a) I, and others around me, have had real bad luck with our hardware in Linux, while very good luck with our hardware in Windows; or b) we are talking about different things.
The first option being possible, the easiest explanation is the second one. Notice how Greg quickly jumps to the usual "Linux is 80% of the world's top 500 super computers right now and we're also the number one embedded operating system today". This is good, but it's not what concerns me the most, and it's not what I was talking about, especially in the context of hardware support of an OS like ReactOS. So to be clear, what I have in mind is desktop PC hardware, not supercomputers, mobile phones, wireless routers or electric screwdrivers. Of course, you may not have the same interests, but I'm pretty sure that this forum is full of people whose primary concern is related to the PC desktop market. Thus, that Linux supports a hell of a lot of all types of hardware devices doesn't translate to Linux having better support than Windows for the devices that me and Joe Average are interested in.
Following this line of though:
I don't understand this. Is he saying that some people have a negative perception about Linux HW support because it just happens that their particular hardware is not supported? That what matters is the bigger picture, i.e., that taking into account every single device out there Linux has the broadest support and therefore those perceptions are baseless? I don't know. What I know is that most people that bitch in forums about Linux not supporting their devices are simple PC users, and when you have a sizeable bunch of them there must indeed be a problem with said support. Things don't come out of thin air. The perception that Windows is insecure, although repeated and exaggerated in some circles, is rooted on certain facts. The perception that Linux hardware support is lacking compared to Windows is also based on the experience of users having problems running their kits in Linux. The rest, like comparing 'out of the box' support, number of drivers included in the installation CD, or number of microwaves running the Linux kernel, are pointless issues.
Heh, yes, that's it. And let me add "and when people want to use it". I won't care very much if in 10 years time my webcam doesn't work in Windows10, but I want to see my parents via Skype today.
Comment
Comment