PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Linux and blame don't mix
December 12th 2000, 13:33 CET by Andy

It's hard to believe how blindly some Linux advocates will defend their OS of choice...

An article on LinuxGram reports that most flavours of Linux won't install on Pentium 4 systems:

In another one of those awkward little moments that we have come to expect from Intel, the chip giant has confirmed that only Red Hat and TurboLinux can be installed on Pentium 4 boxes. The rest of the Linux herd won't run on the hardware.

The problem is with the databases used by Linux installations, which store information about different processors. If a processor isn't listed in the database then the installation can't (or won't) continue. With the P4 being so new, most Linux distributions don't yet include the identifying info, known as the CPUID.

Intel's support page says:

Intel Corporation is working closely with Linux operating system vendors to make updates available. Please contact your Linux vendor regarding an updated Linux install with the correct CPUID database, for Pentium 4 processor recognition.

There have been several software/hardware problems with P4 chips and motherboards, some of them over-reported and some not reported enough, but this particular 'issue' has been hugely spun by LinuxGram.

By kicking the story off with an opening statement that blames Intel, once again we see how the Linux community fails to recognise -- or just stubbornly denies -- its failings and weaknesses.

Everyone knew the P4 was on the way. The CPUID info is available. Red Hat and TurboLinux updated their CPUID databases in time, or at least worked around the problem. So surely the blame lies not with Intel, but with all of the other Linux suppliers?

This was an opportunity for the LinuxGram reporter to offer some constructive criticism to the Linux community, ie: Plan ahead better, learn from the big boys and similar problems can be avoided in future.

But this is Linux so no, it's someone else's fault.

LinuxGram boasts that it has "the best reporters in the industry" which are "pledged to fact and fair comment". Pledged, maybe, but on this occasion they ducked the issue and allowed their bias to show through.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Linux and blame don't mix

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Andy"
2000-12-12 13:34:50
andy@meejahor.com
Not directly relevant to the story, but have a look at the <a href="http://www.linuxgram.com/editors.phtml">LinuxGram bios</a>. Ego!
#2 by "BloodKnight"
2000-12-12 13:46:00
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
DAMN IT ANDY!<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#3 by "AshRain"
2000-12-12 14:28:38
ikhier@wish.net
These guys just became full off themselves a while ago. It happens to almost everyone who runs a well visited site. Hell it even happens to persons of nopnvisited sites.

It's Linux. Someone will patch it. That's the whole point of Linux. Bitching that it isn't compatible with the latest tech is bs. Now it it was something that couldn't be fixe then they might had a point. But it can be fixed, both Red Hat and TurboLinux managed.

This whole stuff reminds me off this.
#4 by "Frain"
2000-12-12 14:30:39
frain@bigfoot.com
from reading the highest moderated posts in slashdot, I assume the following:

LinuxGram tried to get some free publicity, which they did by being slashdotted.
The reason most distributions don't work is because they use the kernel that was standard at the time of their mastering, which is mostly 2.2.17. 2.2.18 was released yesterday and it does support the P4, as did a lot of the 2.2.18-pre versions that have been available for some time.

This leads me to the following: neither Linux, nor Intel is to blame, because everything's alright, isn't it? The only ones that saw a problem were those reporters at LinuxGram...if they covered gaming, they would probably be upset that Sanity doesn't load as fast as lightning on their P200 ;)

Frain
#5 by "player11"
2000-12-12 14:34:56
thrawnage@bigpond.com
for a cpu that isn't on the market yet i dont see this as an issue, yet.
nux "jurnos" cry like children, so everyone goes "Grrrr damnable intel!"
all while the rest of the world doesn't care.

However of interest is Project IGI, which is a fantastic game! The outdoor terrain is amazing someone give this game a multiplayer patch! This is the engine tf2 should use! :).

Ok im all done, move along
#6 by "Gunp01nt"
2000-12-12 16:05:11
supersimon33@hotmail.com
Hmm... Linux. Trying to install that is a challenging game on itself.
#7 by "BloodKnight"
2000-12-12 16:35:32
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>Gunp01nt</b> (#6):
<quote>Hmm... Linux. Trying to install that is a challenging game on itself.</quote>

Would be harder then actually trying to beat Daikatana on the hardest difficulty?
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#8 by "deadlock"
2000-12-12 16:45:39
deadlock@eircom.net
Gunp01nt: it's not all that difficult if you are using RedHat or similar, the process is similar in some ways to Windows. It's a nice GUI frontend and most of the more difficult/tedious work is done for you (ie setting up X etc.). The only daunting thing is trying to decide which packages you need/want but that's because of the sheer volume of software included with Linux distros (something which, in fairness, has never been true of Windows).

All OSes have their fans and most even have a small number of fanatics. Linux seems to have a disproportionate number of fanatics though, which is a pity. One of the things I notice from reading Linux forums is that the 'devotees' (as if OSes are competing religions) tend to be very uncompromising in their opinions. Everything is M$ this and 'Winblows' that, without anyone ever conceiving the point that Windows wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't what people where looking for in an OS.

The arrogance sometimes astounds me - assuming that people are stupid because they prefer Windows (which works) to Linux (which doesn't, at least not without considerable tweaking and some cajoling).  Assuming that everyone needs to be able to access their box through the campus firewall using Telnet.

deadlock
#9 by "szcx"
2000-12-12 17:22:29
nedocze@hotmail.com
seems the distro could have just fallen back to some "compatibility" mode if it couldn't determine the cpu.  i mean, that's just common sense.  they might not have been able to detect the pentium 4, but they could certainly have detected that it's an x86 chip.

for example;  when my code is initializing the graphics system, it uses different versions of all the graphic primitives based on the cpu it's running on.  if it doesn't recognize the cpu, it uses the reference version.

for the master race, those gnazi's sure are dumb.
#10 by "player11"
2000-12-12 17:34:11
thrawnage@bigpond.com
<b>szcx</b> (#9):
<quote>for the master race, those gnazi's sure are dumb.</quote>

Bwhahahahhaha :) oh thats rich... <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#11 by "datafox"
2000-12-12 17:54:02
datafox@yahoo.com
Gunp01nt (#6):
No, I do not think so. Games are fun, installing a OS is not fun at all.

I have seen the fun of installing linux and that rocked. Running it on a 486 along with Windows 98 is so fun.
#12 by "BinaryC"
2000-12-12 19:11:03
binaryc@teamreaction.com
datafox (#11) wrote:
No, I do not think so. Games are fun, installing a OS is not fun at all.

Some people like peas, others prefer carrots.  I happen to like installing linux.  It's similar to programming.  Some people absolutely hate programming.  I happen to love it.
#13 by "WarrenMarshall"
2000-12-12 20:20:31
warren@epicgames.com
deadlock (#8):
The only daunting thing is trying to decide which packages you need/want but that's because of the sheer volume of software included with Linux distros (something which, in fairness, has never been true of Windows).

(cheap_shot)
Well, they have to include a lot with the install since that's the last software you'll be seeing for a while.
(/cheap_shot)

;)

BinaryC (#12):
Some people like peas, others prefer carrots. I happen to like installing linux. It's similar to programming. Some people absolutely hate programming. I happen to love it.

Err ... why should installing an OS be similar to programming?  That's insane...

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#14 by "deadlock"
2000-12-12 20:46:48
deadlock@eircom.net
I think he meant in the sense that they are either enjoyed or detested by people. At least I hope that's what he meant.

deadlock
#15 by "None1a"
2000-12-12 21:22:55
none1a@home.com
<b>deadlock</b> (#14):
<quote>I think he meant in the sense that they are either enjoyed or detested by people. At least I hope that's what he meant.</quote>


Why should installing an OS be at the extermes? People generealy don't like installing windows but it's at lest some thing you can stand to do.

Part of the "fun" of installing Linux is that it's a chalange, in order for it to get any where as an OS that "fun" will need to be removed and the process as automated as possible (and the 6 CD's full of free stuff and multible version fo every thing needs to go). <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#16 by "deadlock"
2000-12-12 21:53:59
deadlock@eircom.net
Ok, 'detested' was a bit of an overstatement, some people don't find installing an OS all that fun. I agree that part of the fun of Linux, for some at least, is that it is something of a challenge. For other people, it is a serious rival to Windows in that it is highly configurable. Making it less obtuse to configure isn't necessarily a bad thing, but this is what most Linux fanatics seem to be opposed to; they want the OS to be more accepted by the mainstream, yet they don't want to see any concessions made to useability.

Linux, to me, is a very mixed up world; some parts of it are very forward-thinking and mature, while other parts seem to be stuck in the dark ages of computing.

deadlock
#17 by "BinaryC"
2000-12-12 21:54:03
binaryc@teamreaction.com
yeah, that's what I meant, kinda...

part of the fun in programming (for me at least) is the challenge of a problem and the reward after you solve it.  By installing I really mean configuring.  The actual selecting of packages in the initial menu isn't really all that great.  The fun comes after the packages are installed, when you go in and configure everything and get a bunch of programs to work together harmoniously in a system.  Now that I think about it, that falls more into the catagory of using it rather than installing it, whatever...
#18 by "None1a"
2000-12-12 22:53:54
none1a@home.com
<b>deadlock</b> (#16):
<quote>Linux, to me, is a very mixed up world; some parts of it are very forward-thinking and mature, while other parts seem to be stuck in the dark ages of computing.</quote>


That's the major problem, the dark ages ones seam to out number those that really would like to see it be a force in computing. Linux reporters (like those on LinuxGram) who are the ones spreding the word tend to fall into the dark age area (even more devestating when those reporters work for general computing mags/web sites).

Right now I really think the only way to save Linux and move it ahead is to allow it to fall, and allow those that are looking forward to rebuild the whole sceen. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#19 by "deadlock"
2000-12-12 23:28:16
deadlock@eircom.net
none1a:
allow those that are looking forward to rebuild the whole sceen (sic)

I think that this is part of the problem, the tendency to think of Linux as being a 'scene', when it isn't really, it's just an operating system and as such it should be allowed to evolve. Windows has evolved, MacOS has evolved and if Linux is to survive it must evolve as well. Unfortunately for the Linuxheads, market forces - not OS geeks - dictate the way in which OSes evolve.

deadlock
#20 by "datafox"
2000-12-13 00:11:18
datafox@yahoo.com
I was thinking about how tedious it is to wait for everything to just be placed on the HD.

And yea configing it is annoying to me.
#21 by "szcx"
2000-12-13 00:15:14
nedocze@hotmail.com
Linux Kernel 2.4 Will Increase Intellectual Superiority
#22 by "None1a"
2000-12-13 00:39:22
none1a@home.com
<b>deadlock</b> (#19):
<quote>I think that this is part of the problem, the tendency to think of Linux as being a 'scene', when it isn't really, it's just an operating system and as such it should be allowed to evolve. </quote>


There is still a problem, as Open Source software it's created by the scene and it's currently being reported on and publisized by the scene. It should be allowed to evolve but the scene will not allow that to happen as it should, those that are critical of it are quickly dismissed.

<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#23 by "Bracket"
2000-12-13 01:45:10
thebracket@yahoo.com
Isn't this primarily a problem with RedHat and Suse? The thread on Slashdot mentioned that not all distributions bomb out on a failed CPUID. Its worth noting that both the Athlon and Duron have been affected by similar problems, though - which points at a larger issue: Linux is consistently behind the curve on releases. Part of this is that the 2.4 Kernel is remarkably late - so much so that (unfinished) features from 2.4 are beind copied into the current kernel release (the new one fixes the CPUID fix, BTW) - including USB support, and NFS 3 support. I can't fault Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox for being slow on releases: its not as if they get paid for this. On the other hand, if this were a commercial operating system, I suspect that they'd be suffering at the hands of their publisher by now for 2.4's continual bloat, feature creep and ever-slipping release date.

I should add that I like Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NT4, Win2k Pro and Win2k Server - and use them on a daily basis. Linux has some neat tools available for it, and if you can survive Library Hell, several unfinished & inconsistent UI choices (Gnome, KDE, all sitting on the less-than-stable XFree!), it can be very, very useful. I use Linux for network monitoring & analysis, as well as some basic tool development. Using many different operating systems makes it painfully obvious why Linux can't - and won't - succeed in the long run: its the bastard step-child operating system, desperate to be all things to all people, and without ever managing to focus on one thing to be good at.

Desktop OS
Windows, for all its faults, is very good at being the Operating System of choice for "normal" users; application support is great, COM/COM+/DCOM largely removes the Library Hell issue (DLL hell is still an issue, but these days if you get DLL hell its because your application supplier is a moron), and component based application development is a reality. Linux tries to be a desktop OS, by mimicing COM (KDE+Gnome both try this), trying for a Windows-like interface (X+KDE+Gnome), releasing OpenSource attempts at replicating office application functionality (Star Office, Gimp, etc.), and trying to produce games (Loki software & OpenGL support, as well as regular Slashdot threads discussing the need for a DirectX clone). Sadly, because Linux users lack the development resources of a major company, and because of the general lack of an overall direction, Linux is doing pretty badly at becoming a viable desktop OS. Neither Gnome nor KDE are addressing underlying library hell issues, so their attempts at a component object model rest on weak foundations. X is great for network administration, but really lacks when it comes to the features that desktop users want: no accelerated GDI functions mean its a bit sluggish, and driver support leaves a bit to be desired. Font antialiasing and similar isn't properly supported (except through some hacks). XFree86 isn't particularly stable, and even with version 4 you need either a Ph.D, extreme luck or a guru-friend to get 3D acceleration working. Finally, there is kernel recompilation; this isn't as necessary as it used to be, but there are still features/patches/hacks that sometimes need a recompile. That scares most users witless!

Server OS
Linux's server capabilities are pretty good; you'd hope so, given that they are based on such thoroughbreds as FreeBSD! That said, FreeBSD ships with a more streamlined firewalling package (natd+ipfw) - faster, more powerful and easier to configure than IP Masquerading. FreeBSD is generally more stable, and most Apache plugins for Linux work on BSD. If you use OpenBSD, you have all the advantages of FreeBSD for servers - plus the support of a group of people dedicated to industrial strength security and stability. Additionally, you have none of Linux's bloat: if you don't want it, its not there. Sure, you have to recompile the kernel - but BSD makes this really idiot proof. Additionally, both FreeBSD and OpenBSD are only available in one - standard - distribution, so there's none of the "Mandrake versus RedHat" crap to worry about - it just works. That said, for setting up an easy to administer server, Win2k is hard to beat... but Free/OpenBSD is hard to beat.

Network Utility Belt
That leaves Linux left in the one role for which I like to use it: the all-purpose utility suite. A lot of great programs (iptraf!) are available for Linux that don't work so well. Many of the scr1pt k1dd13 tools against which I have to defend are Linux-based, so its helpful to have a copy from which to try them. This is the area in which Linux's be-everything-to-everyone philosophy works out best: it can do a little bit of everything, which is just what you want when you are trying to figure out how data got in on a certain port, and what exactly that means!
#24 by "netgee"
2000-12-13 01:45:57
ryan@shiftclick.net
It should be noted that the new 2.2.18 Linux kernel was released yesterday (the same day this story was posted on Slashdot) which fixes the CPUID bug.

Beyond the "gnazis" (cute), zealots, and extremists, I doubt that anyone can deny Linux the benefit of still maintaining a strong and timely developer base.  They get the job done, and they do it well.

By the way, Andy, last I heard, LinuxGram hasn't been declared the official voice of the Linux OS.  The article's slant against Intel is apparently there because of the recent defects and problems found within the Pentium 4 its self.  It's warranted.  And to me, they really don't bash Intel as much as you think they do.

This article, on the other hand, has a blatantly obvious slant against Linux, which I'm guessing is fueled by some bad experience you had with it in the past.  Are journalists supposed to be impartial?  Or have we decided whether or not you're a journalist yet?
#25 by "None1a"
2000-12-13 02:45:10
none1a@home.com
<b>netgee</b> (#24):
<quote>This article, on the other hand, has a blatantly obvious slant against Linux, which I'm guessing is fueled by some bad experience you had with it in the past. </quote>


What slant against Linux, looks more like a slant against the Linux community to me (they can use a good wake up call). <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#26 by "BloodKnight"
2000-12-13 03:47:35
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
Sorry for sounding very ignorant but..
Why on hell do you need to program for Linux OS?  What happened to install the damn thing?
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#27 by "netgee"
2000-12-13 03:47:47
ryan@shiftclick.net
I stand corrected, "Linux Community."

However, I personally feel that the impression most people get of the Linux Community comes from the "vocal minority."  The majority of the Linux community is made up of developers, hobbyists, educators, and commercial parties who understand the importance of advocacy without arrogance.

I use Windows on my workstation, but I administer several Linux servers.  I enjoy tinkering with it, I enjoy administering it, I enjoy the "raw" nature and the control I have over just about everything it does.  I too, however, get disgusted by the eliteist aspect.  I guess it's just one of those necessary evils that helps fuel the community to move forward (Windows has the same crowd, btw).
#28 by "Topaz"
2000-12-13 05:45:57
smith_mt@hotmail.com
Ut oh. Someone mentioned Linux again. Must. Not. Sleep. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
#29 by "EvilivE"
2000-12-13 07:41:03
satanas@worldmailer.com
Warren Marshall wrote:
Well, they have to include a lot with the install since that's the last software you'll be seeing for a while.



Preach on brother. :)
#30 by "code404"
2000-12-13 09:31:40
code404@home.com
My favourite part is andy bitching about halfassed journos acting like there is a major conspiracy against them when they could have easily found more logical explanations with a bit of research ...just sounds damn familar
#31 by "MaverickUK"
2000-12-13 10:44:53
peter.bridger@tpg.co.uk
First post!! .... oh wait, sorry!
#32 by "wabut"
2000-12-13 10:53:36
wabut@yahoo.com
<b>#27</b> "netgee" wrote...
<quote>I too, however, get disgusted by the eliteist aspect. </quote>
bingo.
#33 by "WarrenMarshall"
2000-12-13 11:50:21
warren@epicgames.com
code404 (#30):
My favourite part is andy bitching about halfassed journos acting like there is a major conspiracy against them when they could have easily found more logical explanations with a bit of research ...just sounds damn familar

Hahaha ... didn't even see that.  :P

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#34 by "Morn"
2000-12-13 12:57:52
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
By the way, this and all my other sites are being served by:

- <a href="http://www.debian.org">Debian Linux</a> (Kernel 2.2.18)
- <a href="http://www.apache.org">Apache</a> (1.3.12)
- <a href="http://www.php.net">PHP</a> (4.0.3pl1)
- <a href="http://www.mysql.com">MySQL</a> (3.23.28)

All of these applications are "free" open source software. Without them I wouldn't have been able to do any of the stuff I've been doing for the past couple of years, so I actually owe the "free software" movement a lot. ("free" not as in "free beer", of course.)

The same applies to a <b>lot</b> of other sites out there, too.

Furthermore, I absolutely love Linux as a server OS. From a "remote administration" point of view it's wonderfully straight forward, well performing, and perfectly flexible. I would <i>never</i> want to give up my Linux server for a Windows one...

...but when it comes to desktop usage, I couldn't stand having to work with Linux. Sure, the same things I just mentioned also apply, but Linux' second biggest disadvantage simply is a complete lack of decent "desktop applications". Sure, there are some notable "community" efforts like The Gimp or KDE, and as <i>"community" efforts</i> they're really pretty impressive, in the same sense that Linux on the Dreamcast is impressive, but for my everyday work I a) need certain proprietary standard applications (evil incarnate for the Linux zealots) that are not available for Linux and b) don't have the time to tweak/configure/etc my desktop environment. Windows gives me everything I need (a start menu and a task bar) and then stays out of the way (well, as long as it's Windows 2000 I guess).

By the way, the people involved with PHP's development are some of the most intelligent and open-minded people I've "met" on the net. It's the "fans" who tend to be stupid and ignorant; it kinda reminds me of European soccer. ;)

- Morn
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#35 by "EvilivE"
2000-12-13 13:23:20
satanas@worldmailer.com
I agree with everything you just said there Morn.  Well said.

Linux = Great server OS, Bad desktop OS.

Windows = Horrid server OS, Great desktop OS.
#36 by "Majix"
2000-12-13 16:14:39
majix@sci.fi
It is important to realize that neither Linuxgram (never heard of them before), Slashdot or anyone else can claim to truly speak for the community. There are unfortunately always zealots and fanboys in every "community", be it online gaming, paper kite flying or hobby operating systems, vocal closed minded minorities with their collective heads up their ass who give the true builders and creators bad press.

Linux isn't a great desktop OS yet but I can't help but being amazed at how fast it has improved during the last few years. For example, anyone who has used both Red Hat 5 and 7 knows what I'm talking about. RH5 was something you'd be ashamed to show your friends and family while RH7 can be very pretty and actually usable as a desktop. During the same time on the other side of the fence, the evolution from Windows95 to WindowsME has brought us very few improvements. Now Windows2000 on the other hand is very nice I admit, but the 95 line definitely has exceed it's "best before" date and is starting to smell.

People who complain that Linux is hard to install probably have mental scars from days past when distributions could actually ask you arcane questions like the horizontal and vertical refresh rates of your monitor and stuff. I have tried a couple of new distributions and all detected and installed drivers flawlessly for my Geforce2GTS, SBLive, noname network card and USB mouse, UDMA66 HD, etc. I did not have to answer any tricky questions, it was simply a matter of pressing "Next" a few times and rebooting when finished.

Linux is far from perfect, but every hour of every day, holidays included, people are committing new code into repositories all around the world, the development will never stop and you are free to join. I am biased, as is everyone else, and I am not claiming that Linux will solve world hunger, simply that it is a very handy tool that should be tried out if you have the slightest interest in operating systems or just like tinkering with your sytem. I am eagerly awaiting GNOME 1.4 and Linux 2.4 in 2001 :)
#37 by "szcx"
2000-12-13 16:45:33
nedocze@hotmail.com
Windows = Horrid server OS, Great desktop OS

Windows 2000 is an outstanding server OS.
#38 by "Andrew"
2000-12-13 17:09:16
andrew@epicgames.com
I don't know about outstanding, but it works.
I have a Win2K server serving my webcam, and I've never had it crash.
Also, Terminal Server is a cool feature...it lets me mess with my server without walking to the other side of the office.
Can't you get remote X servers?

Andrew
#39 by "szcx"
2000-12-13 18:38:23
nedocze@hotmail.com
I have a Win2K server serving my webcam, and I've never had it crash

same here.  as a matter of fact, i haven't had any Windows 2000 boxes crash since Beta 2.  the only time they're down is when i'm upgrading.

Also, Terminal Server is a cool feature

yeah, and nested (window-in-window) Terminal Service instances are super useful.  i couldn't connect to my work machine directly from home, so i connected to another box in the office then used the Terminal Service from there.  VNC and PC Anywhere don't come close to it as far as performance is concerned.  one thing i'd like to see though, is a PC Anywhere-style file transfer utility.

Can't you get remote X servers?

Microsoft Interix has all kinds of neat things.
#40 by "Frain"
2000-12-13 18:58:09
frain@bigfoot.com
In #35, EvilivE wrote:
Linux = Great server OS, Bad desktop OS.

hm, Linux is a really great server OS, and I think it's a good desktop OS too, striving to become better every single day. I guess the problem most people face is that they once tried Linux, didn't like it and never wanted to use it again and are now flaming it for unstable desktop performance etc. without having tried the current window managers. I only use KDE, but every release is a huge step in the right direction, the apps get better every day, the whole thing never even crashed on me a single time since 2.0 and their file/web browser konqueror has, IMHO, a performance comparable to IE5. I must admit that StarOffice takes a bit to start up, but I don't really mind that, and it's got nothing to do with KDE anyways ;)

The problem is the lack of games IMHO, but I hope that that will change someday.

In #38, Andrew wrote:
Can't you get remote X servers?

I think XFree has a native networking capability (sp?), but you can use tools like vnc to do that, too...but why would you want a remote X server for server administration? The command line is all you need, IMHO...

Frain
#41 by "Frain"
2000-12-13 18:59:51
frain@bigfoot.com
In #40, /me wrote:
but why would you want a remote X server for server administration? The command line is all you need, IMHO...

whoops, didn't know he was talking about Windows there, sorry :D

Frain
#42 by "RyslinANDIndigo"
2000-12-13 19:08:09
ryslinmoon@yahoo.com
ok..as i forage into this wild and whooly territory..

my 16cents

as a gamer and busy individual, I see that linux is a nice happy little os that does NOTHING i want it to do. Shoot trying to connect to the internet thru pppoe was horrendous but invigorating.

untill linux does these specific things it will be second mabey third fiddle.

1. have ease of install even AFTER Os is up and running[this means no strange root calls...thats why windows hid then got rid of dos]

2. get game companys to make the linux version at the SAME time as windows..or even a week late.
if that happened alot of gamers would wander over for stablity...shoot some games i love wont even work on 2000 so in 98 i stay...I WONT TOUCH ME..'

3. as for apps..same goes as 2

4. make everything reltively if not completely idiot proofish..we all know how intelligent the idiots are ..and they are driving the market...make it so they can find what they want without having to load two or more types of xwindows and never touch the underlying os..and they will love it.


now personal gripes..
pisses me off to NO end...when someone babbles about the superiority of this or that os.
i sometimes wish os2 had been more stable ..i liked its interface and attempt..face it..os's are kinda going use oriented..linux server for your workstation lan with 98 boxes and nt workstations scattered together ..

works well at this point..not pretty but well..

it comes down to what do we want linux to do..
be a desktop or a server..
if we want both...we are screwed they can only do one thing at a time ..[free codeing] and the server is selling ..or is that downloading ...linux everywhere.


the average jo wants a box..they can turn on and poof ..they are in a nifty enviorment that doesnt take more than memorizing how to use a mouse..they put disk in cdrom...software installs itself and sets itself up..poofers..then they use said software and turn said machine off..next toy..
i dont know if linux ever will want ..or will be that way.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#43 by "palutke"
2000-12-13 19:25:46
kcpalutke@tasc.com
<b>Morn</b> (#34):
<quote>It's the "fans" who tend to be stupid and ignorant; it kinda reminds me of European soccer. ;)
</quote>

Yeah, can you imagine the Windows hooligans and the Linux hooligans having a riot?  Or would they just team up and stomp the MacOS hooligans?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#44 by "Frain"
2000-12-13 19:38:17
frain@bigfoot.com
Overlooked that one:

In #19, deadlock wrote:
Windows has evolved, MacOS has evolved and if Linux is to survive it must evolve as well. Unfortunately for the Linuxheads, market forces - not OS geeks - dictate the way in which OSes evolve.


The difference between Windows, MacOS and Linux is that much less money is, or at least has been, involved in the development of Linux. I don't think Linux is able to die because of that, as long as there's those "Linuxheads", there will be people willing to further the development of Linux and its apps.
Another thing: market forces don't dictate the way in which Linux evolves because there's mostly no personal gain for those that develop Linux if the mass accepts it. The more copies Windows sells, the more money Microsoft makes. Granted, the more copies eg. SuSE sells, the more money flows back into the development, but everything's started without the thought of money dangling before the developers' eyes, and I think that's an important factor. A lot of people program for Linux because they think it's the right thing to do, not because they want to sell copies.

Frain
#45 by "WarrenMarshall"
2000-12-13 22:15:45
warren@epicgames.com
EvilivE (#35):
Linux = Great server OS, Bad desktop OS.

Windows = Horrid server OS, Great desktop OS.

Horrid?  That seems a little over the top ...

Frain (#40):
hm, Linux is a really great server OS, and I think it's a good desktop OS too, striving to become better every single day.

Heh, well, you know ... that's great and all ... but I need to get work done -today-.  ;)

Frain (#44):
The difference between Windows, MacOS and Linux is that much less money is, or at least has been, involved in the development of Linux. I don't think Linux is able to die because of that, as long as there's those "Linuxheads", there will be people willing to further the development of Linux and its apps.

But there's a difference between "thriving" and "existing".  If Linux plods along being developed by a few weenies in their bedrooms between classes, it's never going to catch Windows ...

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#46 by "Frain"
2000-12-13 22:38:52
frain@bigfoot.com
#45, Warren:

Well, I wasn't really trying to convince anybody to nuke Windows and switch to Linux and I also realize that it's better for a lot of people to stick to Windows for the time being, but I DO think that Linux will be a serious contender someday.

The thing is, Linux evolved from being developed by those weenies to being developed by a lot of great programmers. I was just making the point that Linux doesn't have the need to survive against competition because there will always be some dedicated people that will continue to work on it. I stated that because somebody said that Linux wouldn't survive against Windows and MacOS...

---

Frain
Someday, I'll have such a nifty signature too ;)
#47 by "WarrenMarshall"
2000-12-13 22:48:50
warren@epicgames.com
Frain (#46):
I stated that because somebody said that Linux wouldn't survive against Windows and MacOS...

Well, again there's the difference ... surviving, but not competing.

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#48 by "deadlock"
2000-12-13 23:28:57
deadlock@eircom.net
Are journalists supposed to be impartial?

no, and whoever told you that is your enemy (gotta love rage). Seriously though, there is no such thing as an impartial journalist, all publications (and individuals) have an agenda (hidden or otherwise) and it has always been the same, all through history. What has changed is the nature of the agendas in some publications/other media, ie commercial versus political. Newspapers traditionally tend to have a political agenda; don't believe me ? go watch Citizen Kane, in particular the scene where Kane directs his editor to run the newspaper's manifesto on the front page. Or ask yourself why, exactly different newspapers run different slants on the same story. Politics.

Journalists aren't supposed to be impartial - they are supposed to present facts though.

Majix:
people are committing new code into repositories all around the world

Exactly, Linux coding is fragmented, bewilderingly complex and not very well documented. You can bet your bottomb bracket that every line of code in the various Windows incarnations is documented, likewise MacOS, etc. Protecting your interests and all that.

Frain:
but everything's started without the thought of money dangling before the developers' eyes

That's just bollocks. Why would RedHat, SuSE et al bother distributing Linux of they didn't think they would make money out of it ? For the good of their health ? Because it's 'the right thing to do ?' It's an OS, a cheap, viable alternative to Windows, MacOS, Unix etc., not a fucking moral impetus! All it will ever be is a cheap, viable alternative to commercial OSes.

deadlock
#49 by "deadlock"
2000-12-13 23:32:51
deadlock@eircom.net
Frain:
market forces don't dictate the way in which Linux evolves because there's mostly no personal gain for those that develop Linux if the mass accepts it

Market forces dictate the development of everything, even things that are available for free. Why else would Gnome be developed along similar lines to the popular commercial GUIs ?

deadlock
#50 by "BinaryC"
2000-12-14 05:21:52
binaryc@teamreaction.com
Deadlock(#49) wrote:
That's just bollocks. Why would RedHat, SuSE et al bother distributing Linux of they didn't think they would make money out of it ?

Redhat (don't know about suse) doesn't really develop much except the pretty installer.  The real code is being developed by people that aren't getting a dime out of the stuff redhat sells.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Linux and blame don't mix

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]