id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

[Scali]

did i say it wasn't running windows software on linux - NO i did not. But i don't hate windows applications, nor am i running them because i 'don't want to give them up' - i run them because they are good. - thus i have proven your claim as to why wine exists is nothing more than fallacious and your own stupid opinion...

Lolwat? You are still using linux rather than Windows.
If you think that Windows software is so good, why not run it in Windows then? That's my whole point. You'd need to be some twisted kind of closet Windows lover to require Wine in the first place.

you obviously are just googling this stuff and don't know what you are talking about.

Lol whatever. Actually I'm a musician as well, and have been using Cubase since the Atari ST days (yes, they didn't have VST yet, back then).

VSTs are NOT just for Cubase and ANYONE who has been into proaudio/computer music even moderately would know that :\

I never claimed anything like that. You're looking really hard to find insults here.

yup. you don't know what your talking about at all...

Uhhh, how does any of that prove that NT is the name for the *kernel* rather than the *OS*? If anything, this line reinforces that it's the name for an OS:
"It is popularly believed that Dave Cutler[2] intended the initialism "WNT" as a pun on VMS, incrementing each letter by one. However, the project was originally intended as a follow-on to OS/2 and was referred to as "NT OS/2" before receiving the Windows brand."

VMS and OS/2 are both OSes, not kernels.

*face palm*. (MacOS) X (Not Unix). the X is the important piece there, which yes stands for ten - but guess what - so does the 'X' in X not unix...

Why exactly would Apple want to stress the 'Not UNIX' in MacOS X, when the classic MacOSes weren't UNIX in the first place? If anything, OS X is a whole lot more UNIX than MacOS ever was.

Was MacOS 9 ported to Intel?

Of course not, since it was phased out YEARS before Apple released the first x86-based Mac.

Was MacOS 9 a completely different OS than MacOSX?? YES.

Obviously. But what's the relevance of that here.

Yes, MacOSX initially ran on PPC, but that doesn't change anything that i said, dude.

Actually it does, 'dude'. Namely, you said: "Where as MacOS 9 was a totally different OS, built on a totally different architecture (PPC) and vastly different underlying components...."

Since both OS 9 and OS X run on the PPC architecture, how is that totally different?
That is what I pointed out, rather ironic after your jab of "You might actually want to make sure you know what you are talking about before making such comments, they really do come off as uninformed and dumb", don't you think?

the fact is OS9 was built on PPC and it's underlying components were vastly different than MacOS X. You have done nothing to argue that, here other than bring up something that is rather pointless.

Ofcourse I wouldn't argue that. I have always known that OS X is a completely different OS from the classic ones. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. I didn't even mention OS 9 at all, let alone that I said it was not different from OS X. If I did, paste the quote. But I don't see anything remotely like that in this thread.

[Scali]

That is just branding 101 for marketing purpose which still does not change what are underneath them. Android is nothing more than Dalvik (Java based platform) with Linux kernel. Same for Ubuntu which uses GNU platform (mainly compiled with GCC) and Linux kernel.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. You're now saying that Android is Dalvik + linux kernel, and Ubuntu is GNU platform and linux kernel.
Since Ubuntu (and every other linux distro out there) does not have Dalvik, and also, since Android does not include things like Xorg, or a commandline etc, clearly Android is not just another linux distro.
Bottom line is that Android apps won't work on regular linux distros, and regular linux apps won't work on Android. So very much different platforms/ecosystems/environments/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
Which has been my point all along. I don't see how being anal about GNU/linux and whatnot has done anything to contend my point, or contribute to the discussion at all.

I am not afraid to be wrong, that is human nature to learn from the mistake. Can you do the same?

Sure I could. I'd have to be wrong first though...

[Scali]

NVIDIA has explained why they're not open sourcing their drivers, and they've never claimed it's completely for reasons outside of its control.

Indeed, they have given reasons. So it's not that there are no reasons.
Whether or not you find their reasons valid is irrelevant, as it won't change their decision not to release driver sourcecode.
And they are not alone in this decision. AMD does not release their source code either.

For most Windows drivers, no source is ever released as well. But who cares? The important thing is that the drivers are available and that they work. Then nobody needs the source code in the first place.

[ninez]

It's a neat game-of-words. The sentence "a decision to support Linux on our GPUs" is kinda crafty, as it leaves you wondering who is supporting what and where, and what "support" means. It's beautifully ambiguous. It should read "a decision to support Linux users that have purchased our GPUs", because they are not supporting linux. They feel as if they are allowing their customers to run linux.

Weird. I don't see it that way at all...I don't ask myself even one of the questions you list above (not even by a long shot), nor do i find their statement to be 'beautifully ambiguous'. Nvidia gave some pretty straight-forward reasons as to why they have chosen the path they have... I also find your 'rewrite' to be a little silly as well ~ do you expect Nvidia to support users (aka:customers) that have NOT purchased their GPUs? furthermore...

...I think you need to actually define what 'supporting linux' really means... - as i personally find that statement to be a bit ambiguous. Is there really only one _particular_ way that you think a company can support linux??? - if so, please define it then... because from my perspective Nvidia has supported linux in many ways, just not in some of the ways kernel developers and _some_ users would like. They produce IMO the most performant stable GFX driver, they contribute code (to various projects; Xorg, linux kernel, etc), they have frequent releases of their drivers (both stable and beta), they work with some companies/developers to improve their software, AutoDesk is a good example...i think recently with Valve too(?)... They provide me with better driver support than AMD Catalyst ever did for me - or any other Linux GFX driver for that matter. Sure, no Wayland support (yet) and they can't make use of certain GPL'ed interfaces in the kernel, but for me personally - all of the GFX drivers that do support these technologies directly - don't offer the performance Nvidia does, not even close.

"regardless of platform or operating system", except for the MIPS platform, which we just lost a bajillion dollars on in china..

If i remember correctly - didn't they want Nvidia to give them the source code of their driver? - where as with the platforms nvidia supports, they actually do the development in-house or work closely with MS/Apple/etc... anyway, i don't want to get heavy into that stuff - i've never heard any reliable information about that deal, only speculation/rumours from mostly infamous sources

"this may not please everyone", meaning almost anyone that is currently running linux.

Please don't speak for anyone but yourself. While Nvidia does piss me off every now and then, generally i am pleased with their hardware and software. But obviously, there are people who have good reason to be upset with Nvidia - i just don't like when some linux user tries to make claims about the whole community (every user) that may not be true, if at all.

It all strikes me as snarky in a passive aggressive way. Perhaps it's clear cut and my BS-meter is registering a false-positive.

My vote: false-postive

[ninez]

Lolwat? You are still using linux rather than Windows.
If you think that Windows software is so good, why not run it in Windows then? That's my whole point. You'd need to be some twisted kind of closet Windows lover to require Wine in the first place.

Really, eh? Your whole point is based on a quite narrow scope and very obtuse. Why would I want to buy a windows OS/license? or dualboot? Did you know that i can have SIGNIFICANTLY lower latencies with Linux (?) - superior optimizations, better resource/memory managament and customization than i can have in Windows using the exact same VSTi??? ...and as a musician, whom is using a RackmountPC running linux - as my keyboard(s) sound module / effects processer - this kinda fucking matters... In fact, there are several Commercial high-end sound modules doing the exact same thing (built on Linux + wine) and have become an industry standard amongst performers;

http://www.museresearch.com/products/index.php

So clearly while you think i should just use Windows, i know i shouldn't for good reason. Your logic is severly flawed... And really, when it comes down to picking another OS other than Linux - MacOSX beats out windows everytime for proaudio - so windows would never even come into the picture in the first place. Using Wine for my particular use is infinitely smarter than switching to Windows - and that doesn't make me some 'closet windows lover' - but calling me that - makes you sound like a chump. The fact is it isn't the windows-version of the software that i am favoring ~ it's the software itself. If Native Instruments, Linnplug, etc had linux ports i would use them, by the same token - if i had a way of running the AU plugin (Mac) version in linux - i would just as likely use them. Wrapping the windows VST (.dll) works well - so i do that.

Lol whatever. Actually I'm a musician as well, and have been using Cubase since the Atari ST days (yes, they didn't have VST yet, back then).

I never claimed anything like that. You're looking really hard to find insults here.

my mistake then, because that is what it appeared to be what you were saying, and yes obviously VST came much later... but IMO Cubase is mediocre at the very best and always has been.

Uhhh, how does any of that prove that NT is the name for the *kernel* rather than the *OS*? If anything, this line reinforces that it's the name for an OS:
"It is popularly believed that Dave Cutler[2] intended the initialism "WNT" as a pun on VMS, incrementing each letter by one. However, the project was originally intended as a follow-on to OS/2 and was referred to as "NT OS/2" before receiving the Windows brand."

VMS and OS/2 are both OSes, not kernels.

Dude, the kernel used in windows is called the NT kernel, i don't know why you are even arguing this. I know you wish that it wasn't the case and you think you can twist anything to support your mistaken claim. But it is false. Why don't you go and read some tech articles about the NT kernel being used in win8 phone (?) how about Wikipedia making a distinction between the different versions of Windows 3.1x... here let me quote that for you;

For the version of Microsoft Windows built on the Windows NT kernel, see Windows NT 3.1.

You claimed it was called the 'Windows Kernel' - which isn't true, any argument you are trying to make now is pointless. You said something that was blatanly incorrect... It's well-documented that Windows uses the NT kernel, not something called 'the windows kernel' :\ end of story.

If IBM and OS/2 had won the battle we would be calling it the OS/2 NT kernel

Why exactly would Apple want to stress the 'Not UNIX' in MacOS X, when the classic MacOSes weren't UNIX in the first place? If anything, OS X is a whole lot more UNIX than MacOS ever was.

does it matter why Apple would want to stress X not Unix? - i just pointed out what XNU stood for, and how contrary to your opinions they (kernel + OS name) correspond... What does it even matter in this context whether or not MacOSX is a lot more 'unix' than MacOS? MacOSX is still really it's own beast, it's different than any other Unix-type OS i have ever used.

NINEZ: Was MacOS 9 ported to Intel? NO. Was MacOS 9 a completely different OS than MacOSX?? YES.

Of course not, since it was phased out YEARS before Apple released the first x86-based Mac.

Obviously. But what's the relevance of that here.

relevance?

1. (MacOSX) X - not only means 10, but is the OS major-version. and was a bigger departure than winXP to vista/win7
2. read on...

Actually it does, 'dude'. Namely, you said: "Where as MacOS 9 was a totally different OS, built on a totally different architecture (PPC) and vastly different underlying components...."

Since both OS 9 and OS X run on the PPC architecture, how is that totally different?

...how about next time you bold the full-statement rather than just picking the one part. Maybe i was abit foggy here but - VASTLY DIFFERENT UNDERLYING COMPONENTS' is refering to software, since i had already covered H/W just before that, i would have thought you understood that. Especially, when beyond CPU (and memory type) most of the H/W omponents of the day were pretty much the same.. How are they NOT totally different (?) because further down in your comments you are going contradict youreself, admitting they are totally different, then contradict yourself again, by asking me to provide a quote from you (which is right above). The very fact that you are questioning 'how is that totally differen' implies you don't see much of a difference.

Have you ever heard of 'Rhapsody'? (the operating system) - if you knew anything about the history of MacOSX - you would know that they originally had it running on both Intel and PPC - YEARS before Apple ever migrated from PPC to intel(in the late 90s). MacOSX wasn't designed to be run only on PPC (os9 was).. - it's early development happened on both PPC and Intel at the same time. (obviously, Apple must have had long time plans to switch away from PPC). So they are totally different, both in the underlying system components, how they were developed and the H/W they were designed to run on... In fact, if i remember correctly OpenStep (which is what MacOSX is 'largely' based on) was ported to PPC, but originally supported x86, as well as a few other Architectures.

..anyway the relevance is that while you made the claim that X just means 10 - in fact it signifies much more than that, and the names do correspond (macOS X and XNU). The same is true of NT - NT didn't appear next to Windows until they were using the NT kernel in Windows NT 3.1... and the NT kernel wasn't even originally designed for Windows, but instead MS designed it for OS/2, for IBM.

That is what I pointed out, rather ironic after your jab of "You might actually want to make sure you know what you are talking about before making such comments, they really do come off as uninformed and dumb", don't you think?

bad choice of words, maybe... probably -> but your comments on Wine are MORONIC - it's like you can't grasp the fact that not everyone 'hates' windows applications (specifically) and may have a valid reason to use them in MacOSX, unix or linux.. your logic as to why i should use Windows instead of running a few 'handfuls' of high-qaulity VSTs in Wine is well....retarded. - I am also running then with Jack and some linux apps too (most of which are not available for Win) again, why would i want to buy windows, dualboot and sacrifice functionality and performance??? that is just dumb ...and even still, for things i can't do or software that isn't available for Linux, then i use my Mac ~ which is much better than windows anyway.(for anything that i use a computer for).

Ofcourse I wouldn't argue that. I have always known that OS X is a completely different OS from the classic ones. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. I didn't even mention OS 9 at all, let alone that I said it was not different from OS X. If I did, paste the quote. But I don't see anything remotely like that in this thread.

You wouldn't? then why did you above? ..and i brought up MacOS 9 to show just how vastly different 9 to X was, and that X isn't just a letter/roman numeral - but actually signifies something unique which both the MacOS X name and XNU kernel reference. - which you seem to think they don't.

sorry, but your plain wrong about all of this stuff.

[deanjo]

You're an idiot. The only thing that keeps Linux from getting higher market share are games. With Steam it will change drastically.

Ummm, no that is not the only thing. It is a piece of the puzzle but only a small piece. There are several areas where linux has next to no presence in or lacks refined applications. Gamers make up a relatively small portion of the PC market even in Windows land. For every 20 PC's sold probably only one will have even a mediocre discreet graphics solution. There are other items as well where linux developers seem to require a high level of in depth analysis made by the users before they will address a lot of issues such as crashes. With other OS's they monitor for crashes by users and analyze the dump results to determine most of their bugs. With an opensource OS, they are often asked to do items like provide logs, dumps, self testing and reporting back. That is often more then an end user wants to do or feels that they should have to do. Telling an end user to log into a bugzilla or post on a mailing list is not a non-technical user friendly way to report bugs. There are plenty of other reasons why Linux has not taken the desktop scene by storm and it isn't just limited to lack of games. It has more to do with lack of refinement on many facets to cater to the end user instead of the developer.

[Scali]

Why would I want to buy a windows OS/license? or dualboot?

That's obvious: Because you want to use Windows software. Who's being obtuse?

Did you know that i can have SIGNIFICANTLY lower latencies with Linux (?)

You can't, actually. Windows can do < 1 ms latencies out-of-the-box. On linux you can only do that with special unofficial kernel patches (mostly from Ingo Molnar), but these come at the cost of higher CPU overhead once you reach the < 5 ms range, unlike Windows.
Low latencies aren't exactly linux' strong point.
If you want to make a technical argument, at least get your facts straight. Then again, that was never the linux community's strong point.

Dude, the kernel used in windows is called the NT kernel, i don't know why you are even arguing this.

I'm not. I'm saying it's called the NT kernel because it's the kernel of Windows NT. So the kernel is named after the OS, not the other way around.
I don't know why you are trying to argue that because so far you've failed horribly to prove otherwise.

You claimed it was called the 'Windows Kernel'

No, I claimed it doesn't have a specific name, like 'linux', or 'mach', or something like that. So people just call it the 'Windows kernel', 'Windows NT kernel', 'NT kernel' or such. In all three cases, the kernel is named after the OS, not the other way around (you can't argue otherwise, because Windows was around before Windows NT, and as such, before the Windows NT kernel).

It's well-documented that Windows uses the NT kernel, not something called 'the windows kernel' :\ end of story.

No it's not, look: https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+kernel
Plenty of hits for "Windows kernel" as well. Even ones on the Microsoft site: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s...letin/ms12-042

Vulnerabilities in Windows Kernel Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (2711167)

As I say, it doesn't have a specific name, so it is referred to in various ways, depending on the context. You also see MS referring to things like "Windows Vista kernel" here, for example: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc748650.aspx
If the official name was the "NT kernel", then why didn't he just refer to it as the NT 6.0 kernel or something?

If IBM and OS/2 had won the battle we would be calling it the OS/2 NT kernel

And still the kernel would be named after the OS, not the OS named after the kernel...

i just pointed out what XNU stood for

I knew what it stood for. I just don't see the relevance of it, since it's not called OS XNU (which you were claiming, horribly far-fetched, and no sources to make that halfway believable), or XNU/MacOS or something.
Besides, the XNU kernel is older than OS X, it was also used in NeXTSTEP before that. Again, an OS not named after the kernel.

What does it even matter in this context whether or not MacOSX is a lot more 'unix' than MacOS?

It's just far-fetched to think that the X would stand for XNU. Apple has no reason to stress that OS X is not UNIX, because MacOS was never UNIX in the first place. Their users don't know what UNIX is, and don't care about it. OS X is just OS 10, where the X is used because it looks more appealing in the name, and to stress that the OS is a departure from MacOS Classic.

...how about next time you bold the full-statement rather than just picking the one part.

That IS the full statement, is it not? I could just have bolded (PPC)... Doesn't matter, your mention of PPC was just plain wrong.
OS X may differ in many ways from MacOS classic, but PPC is not one of them.

Have you ever heard of 'Rhapsody'? (the operating system) - if you knew anything about the history of MacOSX - you would know that they originally had it running on both Intel and PPC - YEARS before Apple ever migrated from PPC to intel(in the late 90s).

I know. I also know that Apple never released a MacOS based on the Rhapsody technology, so it is irrelevant to this discussion.

but your comments on Wine are MORONIC

No, they're spot-on, and hit you where it hurts.

You wouldn't? then why did you above?

I didn't, and I said that you should quote me if I did. I don't see you posting a quote. So stop accusing me of things I never said. You REALLY are looking way too hard for insults... again.
Isn't going to work anyway, I'm not exactly ignorant about Macs. I've used Macs from time to time, and developed a bit for OS 9 in the past. And these days OS X is one of the many platforms I target. I think I have a pretty good idea of what OS 9 and OS X are.
Especially since OS X is partly based on FreeBSD, which I have been using for many years (yea, I even use MacPorts on OS X).

which you seem to think they don't.

No, I never said any of that. All I said was: "Likewise, OS X uses the XNU kernel from the Darwin project, but neither XNU nor Darwin are in the name 'OS X'."
I later said: "Yes, so the X stands for 10, not for 'X Not Unix'. It's the same thing as Windows NT still being called Windows, but essentially being an entirely new OS. Has something to do with strong brandnames and all that."

So clearly I say it's 'an entirely new OS'.
I don't see me mentioning OS 9 at all, and certainly not implying that OS 9 and X are the same OS, quite the contrary.

I really don't see why you are trying to build a case for this, the futulity is mindnumbing.

sorry, but your plain wrong about all of this stuff.

No u.

[Licaon]

keep the thread alive with trolling guys, nice, MacOs already in discussion...

[Scali]

In case anyone still wants to argue... It *is* Mac OS 10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
That's what Steve Jobs says, he says 'ten', not 'X'.

[Kano]

Well now the Mac part is deleted But 10 does not look so well as X, so after Win 9 there will be most likely Win X or maybe just Win 20xx