Follow Up to "Linux's Achilles Heel" 533
donheff writes "Fred Langa has posted an Informationweek online followup to his "Linux's Achilles Heel" column that drew a lot of attention on slashdot recently. He responds to several of the most common criticisms and 'posits that high-priced commercial Linux vendors are on a suicidal course, unless they lower prices to accentuate their advantages over Windows.'"
It's quite possible... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has already accomplished this with BSD and OS X. Looking at the Java Desktop System [slashdot.org], I think that this is Sun's endgame as well. For now they'll leverage everything Linux, then slowly replace all programs with Java ones, and the Desktop with Java Looking Glass. It's hard to say how it will work out, but I wish them the best.
Diversity == Good; Fragmentation == Terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't.
It is exactly this sort of shit that nearly killed UNIX in the 1980s and allowed Microsoft the opportunity to supplant technically superior systems with their shoddy software and then leverage that toehold into a desktop monopoly.
Fragmentation is bad for everyone. Sun, HP, et. al. made this mistake before. If they insist on repeating it (and I believe Sun is perfectly capable of repeating acts of inane stupidity perpetually, as they really do seem to have difficulty learning from past mistakes -- remember sunview, openwindows, etc.) they will meet the same fate as before, this time with no one to rescue them.
Apple is different, in that they have always had their own OS and their own niche, and have used their underlying BSD system to actually broaden that platform some. What you are describing for Sun et. al. is a narrowing of their (Linux) platform, and undermining one of the great values of Linux
Lose that and your right back to the state of UNIX circa 1990, and that wasn't a pretty picture (or a viable state of affairs, with every hardware manufacturer's proprietary system incompatible with everyone elses).
Fragmentation is bad, and I do not "wish the best" for anyone trying to fragment the free software world in general and Linux in particular. Quite the opposite: I hope any such efforts fail miserably and teach a lesson certain parties seem quite challenged to learn, no matter how often they burn themselves trying.
Re:Diversity == Good; Fragmentation == Terrible (Score:2, Informative)
I believe you mean the 1990's. Unix was not having all that many troubles in the 1980's. It's biggest competitor was mainframes and "smart" terminals that allowed things like an independent Word Processor to interface to the mainframe.
What you are describing for Sun et. al. is
Re:Diversity == Good; Fragmentation == Terrible (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the thing though. From everything I've seen of Looking Glass, it supports GNOME and KDE apps just fine. It's actually less of a Desktop Environment (like GNOME), and more of a Window Manager (like Metacity). I don't know where Sun is going with this, but they may decide to integrate GNOME and Nautilus into Looking Glass. They've certainly hinted at it by saying that "Looking Glass is a technology demo. Expect to see parts of it slowly migrate into the Java Desktop System."
Re:Diversity == Good; Fragmentation == Terrible (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft was never competing with UNIX. Microsoft is primarily an office desktop system and workgroup networking environment. UNIX was specialist technical workstation system and (these days) high-end server. The competitors to Microsoft were GEM and Deskview on the client side, and Netware and Vines on the server side.
On the other hand, it was good marketing for MS to say that they were competing with UNIX...
Fragmentation is bad for everyone. Sun, HP, et. al. made this mistake before. If they insist on repeating it (and I believe Sun is perfectly capable of repeating acts of inane stupidity perpetually, as they really do seem to have difficulty learning from past mistakes -- remember sunview, openwindows, etc.) they will meet the same fate as before, this time with no one to rescue them.
Sun is not fragmenting Linux. Java Desktop is stuff that runs on standard Linux. You can assemble your own 'Java Desktop' by putting all the bits together yourself, assuming you don't want support.
SunView was before X-Windows. It was certainly not a mistake or an attempt to fragement anything - there were no standards then. When X-Windows came along, Sun provided OpenWindows, a GUI toolset for X. What is mistaken about that?
Re:Diversity == Good; Fragmentation == Terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh, hello, ignorance.
The reason that shit 'nearly killed UNIX' in the 80's was because everyone (the vendors) were making their own Unix.
In this case, its irrelevant: Linux is free, the base technology is out there, you and your competitors all have the same, even, level playing field.
I see nothing wrong at all with fragmentation and propagation of the Linux kernel into whatever devices can support it. GREAT!
If UNIX wants to stay UNIX, however, then thats another thing
Re:Diversity == Good; Fragmentation == Terrible (Score:2, Interesting)
Evaluate peoples opinions for their content, not how soon they signed up for an account on Slashdot.
Are there any... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Are there any... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are there any... (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you find to be illegitimate about existing TCO studies, except for the fact that the conclusion isn't what you'd like it to be?
That they're published by organizations with clear conflict of interest issues. Most of ones with published papers are funded by Microsoft directly or indirectly.
hmm, i wonder what they'll say about the competition of the people paying them... hmmm...
Will they? (Score:5, Funny)
To me, the answer is obvious: The commercial Linuxes should reduce their prices. That will instantly reduce the expectations of the end-user community and avoid the direct comparison to Windows' level of support. Linux will again be a bargain, and issues like incomplete hardware support and other rough edges will matter much less.
Commerical linux companies that have a bunch of support and execs willing to lower prices to make linux itself a bargain while lowering their profit margin and revenue?
I think I'll see a gramatically correct slashdot article before that happens.
-Cyc
Achilles Heel? (Score:5, Funny)
That Linux is a terrible actor with a great body?
Re:Achilles Heel? (Score:2)
Usability: of course thats the last thing you worry about, being a OSS developer, because you do it in your free(as in beer) time!.
Compatibility: well, Goliath gets all the hardware specs from all the vendors and everything locked up in patents. OSS developers stuck with reverse engineering is like eating th
Re:Achilles Heel? (Score:3, Funny)
[David] "I don't understand it, Goliath. I've prayed and prayed, but God won't make my soundcard work on Linux."
[Goliath] "Woof! I only know Windows, Da-vey. We should go ask Pastor Bob."
...
[Pastor Bob] "... So you see, Davey, God didn't answer your prayer, because it's something He wants you to do for yourself. You need to write your own device-driver for that sound card."
[David] "Gee, now I understand. Thanks, Pastor Bob!"
[Goliath] "Woof!"
Re:Achilles Heel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I cite as examples:
12 Monkeys
Snatch
Fight club
I know there are at least a few more where he gave a pretty good performance but thats off the top of my head.
Reverse? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Microsoft raises it's prices to accentuate it's disadvantages over Linux?
Commercial distros, last time I checked, are still a hell of alot cheaper than Windows. Employees of Commercial Linux Distros still need to be paid.
Re:Reverse? (Score:4, Informative)
The price of commercial Linux is that "high" is because 1) the Linux distro actually includes applications and services that Windows does not, and 2) it includes support, unlike Microsoft's licensing.
Next time you're buying a $2000 SQL server license, ask them if you can get 1) a CD, 2) a manual, and 3) ask how many hours of phone support are included. Of course, the answers will be "no", "no", and "zero".
Re:Reverse? (Score:3, Informative)
I use:
open office free...would have to by MS Office
Planner free....would have to by MS Project
Dia free....would have to by visio
Gimp and Sodipodi free....MS doesn't even have one would have to go to another vendor
I'd say the $0.00 dollars I spent on Debian is much better than the ~$1500+ I would have to spend to get the above software.
Re:Reverse? (Score:2)
Microsoft and Sun say otherwise (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, part of Microsoft's Windows Server strategy roadshow these days is the idea that:
Is linux really priced the same as MS? (Score:5, Informative)
The price from suse for five copies of linux [suse.com] is $598. Isn't this still almost half the price of Microsoft Operating Systems?
Re:Is linux really priced the same as MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Overpriced? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that XP Home is a bit overpriced.
All it can do out of the box is play music, watch DVD's, connect to the internet, and download malware while you're trying to get real work done. No, thank you, but I'll pass.
-Hope
Re:Overpriced? (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrelevant, as the original poster's link points to what is touted as a "desktop" version of SuSE, not a server version. But, if you really want, you can get Apache.
XP Home can operate as a full-fledged file server?
With Windows File Sharing, or an FTP server, or an NFS server, sure. Just download it.
With unlimited client-licensed connections?
Nothing stopping you from accepting as many connections with third-party software as you want.
XP Home provides a secure, virus-free work environment for the corporate desktop?
Linux doesn't provide you with one either, so this isn't really a good point for you to be making.
Seems to me that XP Home is a bit overpriced.
Not when you consider that the author's original concern was not with how many different kinds of FTP servers and word processors ship with his OS, but how compatible the OS is with common hardware. Windows is more compatible than Linux. Windows (the version cited) is cheaper. In his view, Linux is therefore overpriced, considering that it costs more than the listed version of Windows yet can't maintain the same level of hardware compatibility. End of story.
All it can do out of the box is play music, watch DVD's, connect to the internet, and download malware while you're trying to get real work done.
Of course, in a corporate environment you would most likely be installing full disk images, complete with all the software you need (and patches) to the client machines, so Windows could "out of the box" do all the things you listed (which no one really cares about on the desktop, except development, depending on the user).
Re:Overpriced? (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, he was the one talking about using Apache on a desktop. I was merely pointing out that you CAN do this.
This is about a ready-to-go solution - XP Home does not provide this.
In corporate environments, there's plenty of custom software that users need that isn't provided by either Windows OR Linux. So if you're going to be making custom disk images anyway, might as well throw in all that software that Windows doesn't have in the first place. So I don't se
Re:I Think It's Telling... (Score:3, Interesting)
And nearly all of the functionality that Linux has depends on third party software that just so happens to come on a couple CDs, instead of being downloaded. I fail to see the big deal with getting a CD or two that has a bunch of free apps that anyone could download, because you're going to make that corporate disk image first, and spending a few minutes downloading and installing the software on a Wind
Re:So Now We're Down to the Rub (Score:4, Insightful)
With respect to what you paid for...
* an operating system that is no easier to use than any of the competing operating systems including OSX and any recently released Linux distribution.
* an operating system that has gaping holes in its hardware compatibility for any device older than a few years.
* an operating system that, despite its "unparalleled commercial software support," still cannot provide a consistent software installation and removal method, avoid rebooting the machine for every other install, prevent applications from writing to the system directory, and not require all users to run as administrator to operate properly.
* it does run a lot of programs though. I'll give you that.
With respect to what we paid for...
* flawless operation on the hardware we use, which includes all major brands and standards. We do not get the same level of compatibility with Windows.
* the ability to continuously download feature and security updates to every package installed on our network automatically and remotely in piece-wise fashion without requiring a company-wide regression test. We still do not have that with our remaining Windows computers. One simply does not install a service pack company-wide without a lot of testing. It's never been an issue with Linux.
* the knowledge that if in two years we decide to change vendors based on price, performance, or value, that we have the freedom to do so as there will be no vendor lock-in.
* the ability to run the same operating system throughout the company, on our desktops, on our servers, on any hardware from Intel to PowerPC to big iron.
* the list goes on...
That's about all the time I got... there's a Windows machine on fire at one of our Chicago clients that I have to look into. It's been fun.
-Hope
Re:Overpriced? (Score:4, Informative)
As a small nit to pick, XP home will *not* play DVD's out of the box. You need to download/purchase/etc. a software DVD MPEG2 decoder for DVD playback to work.
This begs the question: Microsoft obviously licenses many patented technologies to implement in their operating system (JPEG, MP3, Zip, etc.) Why the hell don't they license a DeCSS system from someone and include it as a Media Player codec? Even XP Media Center Edition doesn't include DVD playback. Does that make any sense?
Re:Is linux really priced the same as MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT, considering that's the one copy OEM price that any person can get, I have to imagine that the volume prices (5+ copies) are even cheaper. Maybe someone can confirm, as generally finding the price requires calling someone.
And Advanced Server? For a desktop? How about XP Pro in
And that isn't even the point (Score:2)
And as for hardware support, corporations are typically smart enough to buy hardware that is listed as being supported by the software they buy. Any specialized commercial software may have more limited hardware requirements than Windows XP does, and companied will readily comply. The same is true for Linux.
This guy is really just clueless. He sounds like a j
lowering prices (Score:4, Interesting)
IMHO
High priced distros are for servers (Score:3, Interesting)
PC users don't need high priced commercial Linux distros.
Achilles What???? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/achilles.htm
Re:Achilles What???? (Score:2)
Also, I would think that with the (assumed) hype surrounding the new movie Troy (which wasn't that bad) that all slashdotters would recognize Achilles and a least know that a foppish prince could really harm him, if only in his heel!
I think (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
But I'm not complaining, linux is free and so I have no right to complain as I didn't pay a dime for it. It's just that whenever someone says linux should be on everyone's family living room computer there are a lot of things in the way. People getting offended and the mods posting trolls and people getting +5 insightfuls make this whole free software movement seem really childish. It's sad because I'm sure the people who develop linux, gnome, kde, mozilla, ect. are not here bitching about windows all day long but are actually doing something. I'd do something myself, but I'm still just learning software and I don't have the skills to write a driver for the printer or port PSpice over to linux.
I'm really impressed with KDE3.2 and it's amazing how fast it's updated that is very much beyond Microsoft. There is definatly a window of several years here until longhorn debuts and I think that linux could very well make its way into more people's houses. I just wish something just like apt-get existed for the rpm world that made it just as easy to update. However, I've read of projects in the works just for that so I'm sure "rpm hell" will be over a lot sooner than "dll hell" lasted.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Informative)
You mean something like yum, up2date, urpmi, YaST or (gasp!) apt [sourceforge.net] ?
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Informative)
That's "insightful"? (Score:2)
I'm even willing to fill out the bug report for Fred.
Now, maybe you can help me with some of the specifics. What chipset was it?
Ooooh. It looks like fixing this "problem" will be a little more difficult than you implied. Without knowing WHAT HARDWARE was giving the problem, we won't know WHAT DRIVERS need fixing.
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you answer, keep in mind I'm going to pick the most foolish replies that are most easily refuted and write an article about it.
When was the last time ... (Score:2)
I know that's not the point of this article, but he also completely fails to even mention the most common use of a Linux install - on the server.
A solid response... (Score:4, Insightful)
His points seem valid enough to me and while Linux beats M$ hands down on many points, there are still areas where Linux has to step up before it will be an attractive alternative to Windows across the board.
Having said that it is attractive in many cases now. I migrated all of my employee workstations to Fedora a few months ago and couldn't be more pleased with the results.
How about both? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not sure how it will work out, but it seems to me a good way to leverage the power and ease of the
Linux needs FULL hardware driver support. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Will the software and/or software driver be able to be loaded and unloaded easily without a complete system reboot? They're getting better but we're not there just yet.
2. Will we get Linux drivers that take FULL advantage of the hardware? That means something like supporting all the soundcard functions of the Sound Blaster Live! and Audigy sound cards, all the graphics-processing functions of the graphics card chipsets from ATI and nVidia, and all the functions of all-in-one printers like the Hewlett-Packard OfficeJet 6110.
It's the hardware driver support issue that is currently the bane of Linux, though of course this is less of a problem with very recent Linux commercial distributions.
Re:Linux needs FULL hardware driver support. (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's interesting that you appear to be saying that Linux needs better hardware driver support to become more popular, but the truth of the matter is that most hardware vendors are simply uninterested in supporting a platform that isn't already popular.
Interesting Catch22, no? Actually, it probably won't matter to anyone who isn't trying to evangelize others to their pet OS.
Re:Linux needs FULL hardware driver support. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux needs FULL hardware driver support. (Score:3, Informative)
>> able to be loaded and unloaded easily without a
>> complete system reboot? They're getting better
>> but we're not there just yet.
What the H*LL are you talking about? If there
is a driver available, it will certainly be loadable and unloadable without a system reboot. The problem (if any) will be the avoidance of subjecting the end user to any arcana.
Re:Linux needs FULL hardware driver support. (Score:5, Informative)
is a driver available, it will certainly be loadable and unloadable without a system reboot.
Wrong. You sound as if the system always works perfectly- but it doesn't. It's easy enough to get a "stuck" Linux module.
For example, I've got a USB joystick. Plugging it in will automatically cause a module called "joydev" to be installed. Unplug the joystick while a process has the
Similarly, I've got a CD-R whose burning failed. Attempting to mount it from Linux will hang up for a few minutes, then print a failure message. From then on, reading
I'm sure that many Linux users never see these problems: either because they never do those sorts of things, or they have a better version of Linux (I last tried 2.4.26), or they're just lucky. But they do happen.
Re:Linux needs FULL hardware driver support. (Score:3, Informative)
Amusing that you should bring up rmmod -f -- this is precisely the command you would use :) From the rmmod man page:
Re:Linux needs FULL hardware driver support. (Score:2)
I don't know how you think Linux is "getting better" when we're talking about yanking rmmod entirely.
However, realize this is not something that's fully under control of the kernel devs anyways. Some hardware simply does not enjoy being reprogrammed.
With regards to 2:
This is a vendor problem, not a Linux problem. Linus is not the one who should be held accountable for irresponsible hardware vendors.
-Erwos
The article does make a good point. (Score:5, Insightful)
I myself have years of experience with Linux, *BSD, Solaris, and several other Unixes. When I try to point out a deficiency that I think should be fixed (binary compatibly, PLEASE) I merely get the "you're stupid and don't know anything about Linux", or the "You're using the wrong distro. MY distro doesn't have this problem!" Of course, you can switch, run into some other problem, then be told, "Well this OTHER distro (which you were previously using) doesn't have this issue! You should switch!"
In all fairness, many people have managed to be polite, as evidenced by many of the replies I received in my Linux reviews [slashdot.org]. Unfortunately, one bad apple tends to spoil the bunch. Stop the fighting and name calling! Work together! So much more will be accomplished that way.
And disagreement is no excuse for wanton flamage (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree (rather strongly) with your use of the word "most." It isn't "most" users, it is the "loudest" users. There is an important difference.
Any crowd has its bullies, and the RTMFYDMF ("read the fucking articile you dumb mother-fucker") crowd rears its ugly head in almost every community of sufficient size (I've seen variations on that in the MSFT support groups, the FreeBSD groups, and plenty of others).
Unfortunately, while the RMTFYDMF crowd is a tiny minority, it tends to be the loudest subgroup by far, while other, helpful, normal people tend to be quieter (as they are not looking for the first opportunity to put someone down
Most Linux users and enthusiasts can take criticism reasonably well, just as most OS X enthusiasts, *BSD enthusiasts, Blender enthusiasts, etc. can. Those who cannot unfortunately scream the loudest and get the most attention, emberrassing the rest of us (I have been moderated into oblivion and flamed to hell for posting rather mild criticism of Apple on this site a time or two
I disagree with several of the points in the original article (and agree with others), but I shudder to think of the rude flames the guy probably received from the RTFMYDMF crowd.
It isn't helpful, nor is it an accurate representation of our community. It is, however, the most often seen (or heard) group because of its loud obnoxiousness, and there are certain parties that no doubt would be perfectly happy to enhance that loudness to the detriment of us all (and to their PR advantage).
While I disagree with the current article's posits (commercial Linux distros remain significantly less expensive than their commercial equivelents, particularly Microsofts) and believe it based on too few data points (RedHat is the glaring exception to the above), the author does seem to have tempered his response to what must have been some aggrivating flamage from the more boistrous, and generally more anti-social, parts of the peanut gallary.
Hopefully more reasoned and enlightened disagreement (where appropriate) will prevail in response to this article, instead of some of the knee-jerk flamage that so often gets shouted from the rooftops by an undiplomatic few.
Re:The article does make a good point. (Score:2)
The fact is that linux drivers are often not written by the hardware manufacturer, they are written by users. So if you have a problem you have to turn to other users and give them the information they need to help you. Of
Settle Down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Settle Down (Score:4, Insightful)
The cheap entry point is what is really relevant. Those that try to choose Linux will need a local support network just as they do with WinDOS. THAT is where the real "Microsoft support" comes from.
Re:Settle Down (Score:2)
I do agree that many distros are overpriced and that lowering prices would likely help, but, it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Price Point at the desktop is a only one area (Score:5, Informative)
Time waste (Score:2, Interesting)
The original article was annoying because he "didn't want to make this an issue about tech support", but it is just that. Not everything works straight off. Some people need to be told to turn the volume on. This can take a while for a tech supp
Fred still won't Name That Hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
"There were a few more posts in the "Fred is lying/hiding" vein, but most of those died out when the participants in the discussion saw that the sound system indeed should have worked."
How can they see that it "should have worked" when Fred still won't Name That Hardware?
Once Fred is willing to Name That Hardware, then everyone can progress to the next round!
Is it a BUG in Linux
-or-
Is it a BUG in the hardware
-or-
Is it a CONFIGURATION/USER ERROR
But Fred sez:
"The omission was simple: I had seen no need to burn space in the original article with a list of the hardware specs because the vendor I was dealing with specifically said the system should work with their distribution (I had provided the support techs with a complete hardware rundown); and the sound chipset in question is listed on the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) site as supported."
It would take Fred less space to Name That Hardware than it took to write that paragraph.
Example:
IBM Thinkpad T40
(16 characters plus carriage return)
-vs-
Fred's reasoning why he shouldn't have to to identify it...
(approximately 400 characters)
What was that about not wanting to "burn space"?
Hmmmm.......?
Exactly. (Score:3, Informative)
So, we're looking for "SoundMAX Digital Audio".
Just by coincidence, that is the same as on the IBM T40 laptops.
Now, I boot a Knoppix 3.3 CD in the T40 I have right here and....... it works. I get sound. I get automatically detected and configured sound. I get automatically detected and configured and working sound on the chipset that
"You were an idiot to think that would work..." (Score:5, Insightful)
*Very few of our customers are using product Y.
*Personally, I would never have recommended product Y.
*Why are you using product Y? Product Z is so much better.
*You don't really need to have product Y work with product X.
*By "support," all we meant is basic functionality. It does allow product Y to frangulate over the standard three-gnorgl raniseft. I know that the main selling point of product Y is that it can frangulate over eight gnorgls more than standard products, but we only support the basic functionality.
*Anyone knowledgeable could have told you that X's support for Y sucks. It was your dumb fault for believing the spec sheet.
*We've found that most of our customers LIKE having Product Y hang, freeze, and emit smoke.
*Oh, we're sorry about that, but it was marketing that put that on the spec sheet, not engineering.
Linux on the desktop? It's not 'there' yet.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux distribution vendors only have the right to charge equivalent costs to Windows if and when their distribution is equivalent or better than Windows in all respects, out of the box. This has yet to happen for the desktop market (which appears to be what he's referring to in the article).
In the server space, Linux is definitely "there". Just look at what you can do on some of the new blade servers that HP, SGI, IBM are selling.
However, even the most rabid Linux advocate will agree that you can't typically get a Linux desktop-focused distribution to work across the board, out of the box. Efforts are definitely being made, with most of the commercial vendors producing better-integrated desktop offerings that tie together the various open source projects (evolution, openoffice, mozilla, kde) into something cohesive and easy to use. Problems however, still exist. Partly due to lag-time between getting drivers for cutting-edge hardware, and secondly, because work still remains to be done in the whole "integration of the desktop".
As I read in a fellow slashdotters post a while back, "Linux will be ready for the desktop when users don't need to understand mount(8) parameters" (paraphrased).
The cost of Linux vs. cost of Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I think it would only be fair to point out that the cost of Linux should be compared to the cost of the server version of Windows. XP Home, and even XP Professional, are much more limited than your typical distribution of Linux.
Second, if you're taking the Linux plunge, it's generally trivial to test drive a free (as in beer) distribution of Linux before making the dive into a commercial distribution of Linux that comes with support contracts and other goodies.
Third, the fact that Linux lags behind when it comes to drivers can hardly be blamed on Linux. Hardware manufacturers (whether rightly or wrongly) tend to put a low priority on writing Linux drivers, if they write them at all.
Honestly, I blame this in part on the GNU Public License, since it's somewhat business unfriendly. This is just my honest opinion, please don't flame me for it.
-Teckla
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It's not a surprise if my network card works.
2. It's a mild surprise if my sound card works.
3. (up until recently) It'd amaze me if my graphics card worked to its full potential.
Net, sound and graphics are the most important peripherals that should work flawlessly. Sound and graphics especially, as they're the sensory output of your computer, without them you don't know what's going on.
Linux does not have the same quality of driver database as Microsoft's OSes do. This is merely because Microsoft is dominant. Perhaps a sweet way to handle the problem would be to create some kind of abstraction layer that allowed you to use vendor-supplied Windows drivers under Linux, but that is extremely unrealistic, and it'd be slow and bloated (someone will now pipe up and tell me that it is being worked on).
Linux has been given a boost by the recent dominance of particular audio chips from Creative (such as the EMU10K1) and graphics chipsets from ATI and nVidia.
Sadly, Linux drivers are provided mainly by people who have some hardware that doesn't work under Linux. So they start a driver for it, get far enough for the driver to work well enough for their needs, and then leave it to deteriorate over time without any attention paid to it, as they change hardware. End users then get some kind of beta thing that hasnt been worked on for 3 years but still have to use it. This is the hardware manufacturers fault -- Linux devrs dont have the money to buy and reverse-engineer every piece of hardware. They need the specs, and ultimately they need the vendor to make a Linux driver by proxy, as vendors do for Windows.
Currently though, you don't look bad for not making a Linux driver. People don't open the box and say "wtf is this? No linux driver?!", because they morbidly expect Linux support to be limited. In the domain of onboard sound or graphics, or newer hardware, Linux support is the exception rather than the rule. Vendors need some good reason to add Linux support, and it's not up to me to decide what that reason would be. "Thanks" is not good enough.
I should also mention that even if most home Linux users do obtain a driver for some hardware, they'd be at pains to find out how to install/compile the damn thing, especially if it involves recompiling the kernel.
I'm not flaming Linux, I don't need a crock of shit from the zealot crowd telling me I'm an idiot faggot and so on, I'm just being realistic and saying there is work to be done.
What I'd like to see in the future is a Universal Driver Abstraction Layer, some kind of compile-once-run-many virtual machine that allows the same drivers to work on any OS that supports it, the only problem is that OSes make very different demands of the drivers so this may never come into fruition.
Some things just don't change.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A great example is one of my early posts about how I didn't trust Linux filesystems, and that I'd lost files on numerous occasions due to power failures on ext2 systems. I went back and looked through my whole archive, but apparently this thread was before the cutoff date for archiving... lost to history.
Roughly summarizing, I posted that I didn't trust Linux in a production environment because ext2 was unreliable: you couldn't trust it in a power failure. I didn't get EVEN ONE useful response. What I got, instead, were a mix of (approximately):
1) "Well, gee, I've lost power 14,232 times and I've never lost a file"; (ie, problem doesn't exist)
2) "You should always have backups"; (problem is unimportant)
3) "You're an idiot, you should have copied a backup superblock. Moron. Go play with Windows." (problem is stupid user)
4) "I lost power to my NT machine and I lost 23,124 files!' (NT is worse so it's okay for Linux to suck.)
It was really interesting to see how different the posts were when I mentioned that a couple of years later. I can't find that post now, but by that time, Linux had journaled filesystems. We had a fairly interesting commentary back and forth about how NT 4.0 didn't really have journaling, and that it wasn't until 2K that NTFS was truly robust. But everyone agreed that journaling was good, now that Linux had it. Pretty significant shift in stance, eh?
I've seen this so many times that I'm forced to conclude it's some kind of defense mechanism.... if you really love your pet project, and it has shortcomings, gloss over them or dismiss them as unimportant. I think we would be wise to be more aware of this, and that users in general don't request things for no reason at all. They may just need education. It may be simple ignorance on how to approach the problem in Linux.
Chewing them out, on the other hand, for not manually repairing their filesystems by copying a backup superblock, well.... that's stupider than their not knowing how.
Re:Some things just don't change.... (Score:2)
5) "What kind of idiot would run a server without a UPS?" (another variant on stupid user)
Re:Some things just don't change.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Very insightful. Something analogous is the MS press writers' stances of how the previous versions of Windows truly sucked...but while they were current they were being touted by them to the high heavens. It was only when they became obsolete did they admit to (at least in their press) all of the shortcomings that everyone else had pointed out all along. That sort of 1984'ness never ceases to amuse me....that along with "the next version will fix all of the problems" til the next version gets here and then the cycle starts all over.
No "Linux" corp...??? (Score:2, Insightful)
But somehow the idea that a lot of people would ever be comfortable using a system that isn't managed by a central organization is unthinkable!
SHOCK! Linux community anger! (Score:2, Troll)
He seems amazed that people could react in this way:
Many readers thought I was trying to hide something; or was secretly trying to stack the deck against Linux; or that I had some other evil motivation in not detailing the hardware.
some readers from the Linux community are deeply suspicious of criticism of Linux.
I find it hard to believe that an experienced writer such as Fred Langa would express disbelief at t
Langa has a point -- but perhaps the wrong way (Score:4, Interesting)
He had the expectation that "all would work", and be "supported" (um... work) at least as well as Windows; given the the price was comparable.
From another perspective, that's wrong. If it doesn't work, get your money back -- that's what he paid for. But, Linux is a hobby system. If (or when) it works for Mr. Langa, he will know it, and use it.
What ticks me off is that Mr. Langa is being critical of Linux! You know, that hobby project. Get pissed at Suse, Redhat, Mandrake, (___ fill in the blank). Leave the hobbyist alone! Linux, Debian, et al. I am sure that Mr. Langa (as most of us) hs two standards -- one for professional atheletes, and another for amateur (Olympians, etc.). Yes, the professional bar is higher, as it should be.
If the F/OSS stuff is good enough, it will be used. Sure, criticize, but also give that community positive feedback. We aren't in it for money -- so some positive feedback would be useful.
The vilest thing that has happened to me in the Free Software world was a program I wrote (EMUL87). Distributed on SIMTEL; thousands of users. Not a word of positive feedback. Until one day (actually, 5 years later), when one consultant mailed me, and DEMAANDED I fix the software (because his client needed it). And if I didn't fix it IMMEDIATELY, I would be SUED. I told him to 'f off.
That nearly ended my relationship with F/OSS. But, I changed my mind. I like sharing, you see, and I get stuff from the community.
So, I feel that the F/OSS community is maligned and demotivated by the constant comparision with commercial software. The journalistic tack should be to take the commercial vendors to task if their offerings are so weak that F/OSS is actually competitive.
I understand why some people got defensive. Mr. Langa should CLEARLY state that the comparision is *not* with Linux or F/OSS, but with particular distributions or support organizations.
Enough of a rant.
Ratboy.
Good for him (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel embarrassed for the Linux community when I see people making such asinine remarks (/accusations/insults). In fact, I was *thankful* that someone asked him to 'write his own driver', just so that we could all see just how narrow-minded we can all be.
Supporting Linux means being fair first, and not simply being sycophants. Langa's points are somewhat salient, and they need to be addressed. Not derided out-of-hand.
high-priced commercial Linux vendors (Score:3, Interesting)
If I have an IT company that needs to provide services to, say, 100 customers a second. Say, a big database or such. I can pick Windows servers for moderate price. They will crash under the load about once a day. Because of being unreliable my company goes bankrupt.
Now if I use "overpriced" Linux services, I keep my company running smoothly. It brings profit, it exists. Uptime nearly 100%, with downtimes for upgrades etc announced a month ahead.
I pay what it's worth.
Article issues, price (Score:3, Interesting)
Further, it is a point that, depending on the hardware available, Linux might not work, or not work well on some systems. My present laptop, for example, has built-in wireless that was dead to me until the driverloader compatibility layer was written, and so I was using a PCMCIA wireless card until then. Still, for me using windows wasn't an option -- I'm just not comfortable on non-Unix systems because, so long as hardware support is acceptable, the other advantages far outweigh graphics/sound/whatever not being as fast/capable.
Even now, I could download vendor drivers for some of my hardware (Dell Inspiron 8500), and maybe get a few extra features or a bit more speed, but I just don't care enough.
Linux's True Achilles Heel: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux's True Achilles Heel: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Linux's True Achilles Heel: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you show me any references for this phenomenon? Or is this your conjecture based on the tone of newsgroup postings of late? To bring Ockham's razor into the argument, which is more likely:
1. These users are spies, deliberately planted to make Linux users look like raving, foaming nuts.
2. They are just plain, old-fashioned assholes.
Then again, perhaps I'm being naive. I'm curious to see if you have any evidence to support this.
Criticism yields introspective honesty (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux cannot, today, target the home user or even small business category _effectively_. This is because this market segment demands different (more simplistic) criteria (the pointy-clicky crowd).
So the trick therefore is to retain the technical prowess while providing for the pointy-clicky types. The system admins should be able to command-line to thier hearts content, but the average users should be able to install, use, and upgrade Linux software AND hardware without being attacked by the command line demons. When we have achieved that nirvana then Linux will conquer all.
Until then, its a hobby OS for anyone other than the hardcore non-nOObs.
That said, I am looking forward to the day when I can be Linux only, but for now its to much hastle for the benefit.
problem with commercial Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly the way the US economy is, the commercial ones will be the representatives to linux to joe average and mr. common businessman
and they're not necessarily the best, they offer some good features, but are too narrow in what they provide, much like microsoft.
MEPIS and Mandrake 10.0 are the best for users IMHO, and if a company has some good techs on hand who want to get down and dirty to make some good low-end servers, use debian, and of course, give a nice donation
Why does linux cost more than windows (Score:3, Insightful)
1. When you install windows it is capable of doing absolutely nothing. Yea you might be able to open a text file with notepad but that is as far as it goes. Now compare the cost of a commercial linux distro with it's software CAPABILITY to that of a comparable windows with the software loaded to match it. By the time you are able to match the functionality of the linux box you will have spent nearly 100,000 dollars on software licensing alone. The only functionality in a freshly loaded windows box is the capability of spreading worms.
2. As for hardware compatibility he is addressing the enterprise crowd but is talking about desktop hardware. Trust me when I buy my servers preloaded from HP they just plain work with every piece of hardware in that box. In the enterprise we do not have somebodys 20$ cheapo mexican built scanner hooked to our desktop server. We are talking high end fiber channel, san, huge memory etc.
I will take Windows seriously when it can run on
Power PC arcitecture. You see that statement really turns the tables around now doesn't it. I would say that windows has poor hardware support becuase it cannot run on PPC.
Good For Langa; He's Right (Score:3, Informative)
If a download some free ISO's, then I expect to get what I paid for. But if I choose to spend, say, $89 for a Linux distro instead of Windows, I also expect to get what I paid for. That includes having every piece of hardware, every peripheral, detected and properly configured during the installation. I want the printer to work: I want the scanner to work; I want the sound card to work (and don't mute the thing; that's lame: I found your sound card, and now I'll turn it off); etc., etc.
People do not buy computers and operating systems so they can waste time getting the damn things to work right.
dumb question (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this true? If so ... why?
Why on earth does the system once it's worked out, configured and primed your soundcard feel the need to gag it before it's even had the chance to make one note of noise?
Why would you want something that makes people immediately think that the installation and configuration process of their soundcard is broken because their OS claims it works, but they can't hear a damn thing even with the volume on max? Yet it works just fine under Windows.
Sure, "all you need to do it un-mute the volume", but if the solution is so simple, why couldn't the system do it for you in the first place?
Re:dumb question (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, if the volume is not set to zero, where should it be set to? That's not answerable. You can take a guess, but it's might well be too high, or too low. Too low is less of a problem than too high, hen
Who looks bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my not-so-humble opinion, it's the Linux community that looks bad, not Fred Langa. The virulent, dogmatic reponses look childish, especially when they sound like the folks who preach the virtues of tin-foil hats. There are real conspiracies in the universe -- being unable to get sound working with Linux is not one of them. ;)
I've been running Linux for a long time, and it's certainly come a long way; seven of nine processors (trekkie pun not intended!) in my office run Linux full-time. And it can be a pain-in-the-rump to install; I've had at least one major hardware problem with every install. Now, once Linux is installed, it offers me many facilities unavailable under Windows -- but then, I'm a developer and engineer, and what I need is quite different than what an office worker or home computist wants.
It's too bad that certain religious fanatics insist upon screaming at heretics and unbelievers when their energies could do so much more for making Linux better.
Re:Something about this week? (Score:2)
Re:Something about this week? (Score:5, Insightful)
How are the Information Week articles FUD*? They looked to me to be well-documented and logical. Plus, he could have flamed the idiots that flamed him in...and didn't. He actually gave them a respect they didn't deserve.
*by the MS definition, of course.
Re:Something about this week? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have an interesting definition of FUD, it would seem.
He bought a Linux distribution for as much money as Windows would have cost. He installed it on his PC. It didn't work as advertised.
He then wrote an article about this, in which he explained what didn't work. Linux activists told him he was lying, hiding facts, actively working against Linux, that he was an idiot, a technical moron, that it was his fault, and that the part that didn't work wasn't actually needed.
Those responses were written by people with very strange ideas of how to build a wide acceptance and support for Linux. They seem to have the idea that any and all forms of criticism is written by people actively against Linux, people who should be taunted, haunted and ridiculed, and their articles hidden, removed or just written of as FUD.
This is inexplicably stupid, and actively working against wide Linux acceptance. Nobody in their right mind switch to a product that is promoted by people who cannot take criticism, people who do not listen to facts, who cannot accept an opinion contrary to their own without ridiculing the other person, people who, for whatever reason, are so paranoid that they think that there could "Never, Ever, Be Anything Wrong With Linux, and therefore anybody who says so is after us".
He bought a product. It didn't work as advertised. It could not be fixed by the support. He has every right to complain, tell everyone what happened, and not be ridiculed, called an idiot, or accused of spreading FUD for doing so.
Calling his article FUD is clueless, and actively working against wide Linux acceptance.
But I guess I am now the person, most likely paid by Microsoft, who should be haunted and taunted for pointing out something as ridiculous (sp?) as that Linux could, in fact, have areas where work needs to be done, and that anybody who has paid for a distribution has every right to write an article about it. Without clueless activists calling him an idiot.
I want to be a part of the Free Software world. I do not, however, want to be a part of a narrowminded world where you cannot under any circumstance listen to criticism, where customers must be experts and are otherwise called "idiots", and where anything negative written or said is a sure sign of mental disabilities or a covert Microsoft operation.
If that is the world of Linux, then I will never tell anyone I love it.
Compare apples to apples (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he did not. Given that his primary argument this time out is that linux distros should lower their prices, this significant.
The initial article states that "Distro "XYZ" even costs roughly as much as a Windows XP upgrade". That's right, the linux full version cost as much as a Windows upgrade. Further, unless he paid much more than I've seen any linux distro retail for, he is talking about an upgrade to XP Home edition. Now c
Re:Something about this week? (Score:4, Interesting)
I won't deny that for many, Linux has been a good, useful, and reliable OS. But each time I have tried it, I have come away disappointed, for a number of reasons. My most recent experiences with SuSE and with Mandrake were not bad, but not great. Neither of them was able to handle my mainstream AGP card in the mode I prefer, and neither even showed that such a mode existed.
While I have been comfortably using Windows as my primary tool since the days of NT4, I have also been looking for alternatives. BeOS came closest to being something I would have switched to.
At any event, I am not in the pay of MS, and although my work depends on their OSes, I do keep hoping for a viable alternative.
As close as Linux is getting to viability in some respects, the desktop continues to disappoint. Or more accurately, the quality of many of the alternative apps on the Linux desktop disappoints. And like it or not, folks, the desktop is at the core of acceptance for anything beyond server farms.
Another of the areas of weakness for Linux has long been the documentation (or lack thereof.) In recent months, the situation has improved somewhat, as the LDP seems to have been fueled with some new energy. Still, to me an OS is merely a tool, and not a religion or a cause. I expect and require competent documentation.
Finally, as a developer for whom gcc is not the tool of choice, the various distributions appear to be a minefield of irregularity that makes DLL Hell look good. Although in the main, my interest is for turnkey systems where I can select a distro and stay with it, thereby reducing the problem substantially, I am yet mindful of the reality that the libraries shipped with any given distro tie me somewhat to that distro, or commit me to an expenditure of time that I wish to avoid in changing libraries.
Linux has many attractive features; it's least attractive feature, however, is the anarchical nature of its support.
Re:Something about this week? (Score:4, Interesting)
The original author of the magazine article and -- surprisingly -- all the comments I've seen to date appear to be unaware of the reason for this.
The soundcard manufacturers make sound cards to work under Windows. They cooperate with Microsoft to have drivers written, and their contract precludes (and, I am told, in some cases explicitly forbids) the writing of drivers for Linux, and the publication of driver details to those who would otherwise do the job (ie us, the dev community).
It took Alan Cox all of 25 seconds to explain this to me in the pub a few years ago (unless I have misunderstood it all). Why does no-one else seem to be aware of it?
Let me put it more bluntly: the hardware manufacturers don't give a tinker's shit about Linux, which has 1% of the market. They do give very many tinkers' shits about Windows, which has 90-whatever % of the market (they seem to be lukewarm about Apple). It's not about linux "failing" to support these cards -- it's about Linux simply not being important enough (yet) to warrant their attention.
Only +3? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard the same thing from developers. They simply CANNOT get the specs from the manufacturers. Not only with sound, but with video cards as well.
This is different in the NIC market.
The fact is that until Linux has 51%+ of the market, the home use items (like sound and modems) will work better with Windows.
This is not "Linux's Achilles Heel" as Fred claims. This is basic economics.
The way around this is to clearly
Re:Something about this week? (Score:3, Interesting)
I dispute that. How much extra would he have to pay to get the same functionality on Windows as he gets *at no extra cost* with the Linux distro?
He has every right to complain, tell everyone what happened, and not be ridiculed, called an idiot, or accused of spreading FUD for doing so.
He doesn't have a natural right to not be ridiculed or flamed, but I agree that he, and others like him, should be granted that right by the com
Re:Something about this week? (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been mentioned that Langa's sound problems were related to the fact that he was *emulating* a sound device through Virtual PC. I suspect that it was the primary reason for his problems. He did indicate that sound worked at one point in time, through some means, but eventually failed again. It's hard to tell the exact reasons. I could argue all day that there are a number of peices of hardware that work very nicely on Linux but work like shit on WindowsXP (e.g. Aureal Vortex chips, which are still showing up in new soundcards to this very day). I could argue that my UMAX scanner works perfectly on Linux, but requires a paid driver update from UMAX to get it to function on Windows XP. These are points that totally negate his reasoning for feeling that "Linux is not ready".
Fred seems to be surprised that Linux users get defensive over some types of criticism. Is it really all that surprising? We see all sorts of criticisim from "unbiased" sources almost daily, through "reasearch" that is funded by groups like the recent Alexis de Tocqueville Institution articles. Much of it is without warrant. It's another attempt to steer people away from Linux, so it's hard to tell who is right and who is just cashing in. Regardless, people work hard to make Linux an excellent OS, often without compensation. Criticism isn't a bad thing, but is it not only fair that a critic has his facts in order before hand?
Langa makes an interesting point regarding the cost of Linux software from commercial vendors. I feel that he is missing some important things though. First, desktop Linux software often *does not* cost anything near the cost of Microsoft Windows. He touted Xandros during his initial review, indicating that he had paid for a copy. Xandros standard edition costs a mere $39, and that includes installation tech support. How much more should they lower the prices?
Why is it that guys like Langa associate less value with Linux and the included programs, thus indicating that the price should be lower? Is Linux considered less of a value to him, simply because his software emulated sound device will not work through Virtual PC? I fail to see what Langa is trying to indicate.
Companies like RedHat and Novell are pricing their corporate Linux products because they offer 24x5 technical support for them, at no additional cost, for their Advanced Server and desktop products. High priority 24x7 support is available at an additional cost. They have relatively good response times, and they are covered for a full year over the web (and a shorter time over the phone). This is what you pay for when you buy a Linux distribution. There is a limitation of two incidents with Windows XP home edition before you are subject to the $35 fee for technical support. Windows 2003 Server support is available for a minimum of $99, over email, and phone support is $245.
See a connection here? If you want support, then you have to pay for it. Otherwise, there are plenty of no-cost Linux solutions for home and corporate users alike. I personally can see more value in giving a donation to Pat Volkerding (of Slackware) than to pay for the latest Microsoft OS. With most commercial Linux distributions, you get a stable and powerful OS, updates for the life of the current version (this even includes updates for most of the included applications), and you don't have to dump tons of money into extra software like antivirus/firewall/adware/spyware tools and the support to implement and operate them. How can one NOT see this as a value in its own right?
I see Windows as a value that is geared mostly to the following people; musicians and artists, PC game enthusiasts, and office dorks that need
Re:Moving away from us geeks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial distributions are intended to be polished, consumer-oriented OS's. The writer is correct that they aren't there yet. However, Mandarake, SuSE, Red Hat, etc., are not "Linux." They're a Linux, or a Linux based OS, but not Linux.
Debian, for one example, is still around and still focused on security and reliability rather than consumer use. Gentoo is another. Linux will not lose its focus. Various distributions will have their own focus, but the focus of that distribution does not affect the focus of "Linux" over all.
Re:Moving away from us geeks? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the Windows world the user, (or better the admin who is trying to save/fix a broken system) is locked out of that part of the OS
Re:support is by the masses (Score:5, Insightful)
Not insightful (Score:3, Informative)
Are you completely ignorant to reality? The Internet is like the real world: there are bad places, but there are also good places! If you get flamed down at an IRC channel, big deal. Move on to a good channel where people are willing to help you.
Saying that everybody in the Linux community tells you RTFM just because someone from a certain channel said that is like saying every human is a thief because a certain human is a thief. It's a
Re:Not insightful (Score:3, Interesting)
* You can make your hardware work, but it's not easy. Next time, buy better (but more expensive) hardware.
* Linux can't do whatever it is you're trying to do. Therefore, don't do that or do this other thing, which is kind of what you're trying to do, but not really.
Re:Err ... (Score:2)
You're completely forgetting COO (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost Of Ownership is the real cost of an OS, not the initial purchase price.
Spending an extra couple of hours trying to get Linux to work as well as it should, for working people, instantly makes Linux more expensive than XP, when it comes to desktops.
Have you maybe forgotten all the hours it takes to patch MS OSes against the various worms that spring up, every couple of months or so ?
As a 100% exclusive Linux user, the only time I spend on them is when I read about them on Slashdot ...
I don't want
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Bearing all that in mind (since you can't be bothered to actually read the article, apparently), wtf are you talking about?