Re: Re(4): [newbie] Mac OS X versus Linux?!
On Thursday, February 14, 2002, at 11:30 AM, Mike Settle wrote: I thought this was supposed to be a Mandrake forum - For the last three days, all I've seen is Mac OS related !!! Why don't you guys find a chatroom, or something. Have you actually been reading the emails? This entire thread stopped talking about Mac OS dozens of messages ago and is now talking about the Linux hardware support situation. -- Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Mandrake Linux and Windows XP Pro are my OS's. I am GEEK, hear me roar. -- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: Re(4): [newbie] Mac OS X versus Linux?!
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:30:17 -0600 Mike Settle [EMAIL PROTECTED] revealed these words to me: I thought this was supposed to be a Mandrake forum - For the last three days, all I've seen is Mac OS related !!! Why don't you guys find a chatroom, or something. no disrespect meant, but the thread (while long and numerous) was very informational. No,this is not a Mandrake forum , it is a newbie-list (pun intended. ;-). The original question was _i think_ valid since it was looking for sources on comparison between Mac OSX and Linux. For somebody who have never touched a Mac, this exchange brought me a lot of info and insights. i also understand that this may be take a little time to some subscribers which some have none to spare. I also find myself on that boat quite frequently, so may I introduce my two trusty mail companions: filters and delete. ;-) sorry if some of my comments may seem smart-alecky but they were done in good humor. have a good day! -- Programming, an artform that fights back. = Anuerin G. Diaz Design Engineer Millennium Software, Incorporated 2305 B West Tower, Philippines Stocks Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Tel# 638-3070 loc. 72 Fax# 638-3079 = Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re(4): [newbie] Mac OS X versus Linux?!
You trivialise the issue. Drivers are supposed to be written by hardware manufacturers (who actually know what the hardware is about), not by software/OS designers (who must reverse engineer the hardware to know how it works). Yes, you are of course correct in this, but I don't feel that I am trivialising the issue. The reality, for someone like myself, is that we in principle would gladly buy into the Open Source concept, but we want something that will work. Not necessarily out of the box, but something that is not voodoo for 99% percent of newcommers to the OS. You don't do that in the Mac OS and you don't do that in Windows. Manufacturers are reluctant to write Linux drivers, forcing the community to come up with their own. Why is this the case? First and foremost, there is no commercial incentive to support an OS that only has a few percentage points of the desktop market. This problem applies to all but one x86 OS. Secondly, many manufacturers misunderstand how GNU/Linux works, believing it is somehow 'viral' (to use MS terminology). To them, releasing drivers means letting their intellectual property secrets out into the open, which elimiates any competitive edge that company may have had. This is really where the problems start to come to light. Apple, while dependent on 3rd. party companies to provide certain hardware (and software), largely controls both the hardware specs and the UI, making a far more homogenous package. M$ leverages hardware as well due to its large installation base and in some cases has produced or has had hardware produced under the M$ name to M$ specs, sometimes in a duopoly with Intel. This is also where the Linux business model is partially faulty. Linux is too dependent on hardware manufacturers, as well as splitting efforts too often between, similar GUI or programs. A viable OS is not just based on hardware or software, but a combination of both. Linux has not succeeded in leveraging hardware developers to any meaningful extent as far as I am concerned. The reality is somewhat different: Linux (i.e. the kernel) is licensed under a modified GPL which allows proprietary binary-only modules. Companies like Nvidia have taken advantage of this, and have released very capable drivers. 3dfx and Matrox went one step further by openly co-operating with open source hackers to produce open drivers. Why does Windows seemingly have such great hardware support? Because it has over 90% of the desktop OS market, it cannot be ignored by hardware manufacturers. Do you really think that MS write their own hardware drivers? This does not ignore the fact that most Linux advocacy is done in the area of trying to get hardware producers to support open specifications for Linux drivers or to use Linux in the embedded chip market. What prevents a dedicated Linux group from producing a sound card, video card, etc. that is made for the Linux market? The same goes for PDA's. Sharp's new Zaurus prototype using Linux looks great, but who says that others can't build a better mouse trap? Is it maybe because the market isn't there yet? I'm not sure, but Linux advocacy reminds me a lot of the Mac advocacy that I saw some years ago, when Apple kept losing market share. Lastly, coding for Linux projects, whether they are for the kernel or specific software such as drivers or other things can easily be shared on the Internet. If someone drops out or burns out, there is usually someone else that joins the team and helps out. Physical production can't be shared on the Internet for obvious reasons (Beam Me Up Scotty)!, it requires financial investment, etc. Another kind of commitment is required. All of this is obvious to everyone, yet it seems to me that it is here where Linux' weakest link exists. Apple are in a similar situation. They have their own little hardware market, of which they would have about 99% share (with Darwin and GNU/Linux making up much of the remainder). They make their own boxes, giving them ultimate control over the entire platform. Consequently, hardware designed for Macs works exceptionally well (often better than how they work in Windows). In reality, I don't think that we disagree as such, except maybe with regards to how user friendly the Linux experience should be for newbies. This discussion has been fruitful for me, if for no other reason, that I now know that I should look more closely at Nvidia, 3dfx and Matrox video cards ;-) Finally, I think that Mandrake could improve their site for people doing research about what video card/sound card to buy, by providing a text file or PDF that provides a list of all of the drivers for recognized cards that are available at install for each version i.e. what cards are recognized when installing Mandrake 8, 8.1, 8.2, etc. on a new system. While the categories of known and tested hardware are useful, it really doesn't provide the whole picture. Cheers, Brian Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to
Re: Re(4): [newbie] Mac OS X versus Linux?!
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:57:07 +0700, Brian Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You trivialise the issue. Drivers are supposed to be written by hardware manufacturers (who actually know what the hardware is about), not by software/OS designers (who must reverse engineer the hardware to know how it works). Yes, you are of course correct in this, but I don't feel that I am trivialising the issue. The reality, for someone like myself, is that we in principle would gladly buy into the Open Source concept, but we want something that will work. Not necessarily out of the box, but something that is not voodoo for 99% percent of newcommers to the OS. You don't do that in the Mac OS and you don't do that in Windows. Is hardware support really as bad as you seem to make it sound? I've loaded various versions of Mandrake on a variety of different systems, and I've never had any problems that I couldn't easily fix. Manufacturers are reluctant to write Linux drivers, forcing the community to come up with their own. Why is this the case? First and foremost, there is no commercial incentive to support an OS that only has a few percentage points of the desktop market. This problem applies to all but one x86 OS. Secondly, many manufacturers misunderstand how GNU/Linux works, believing it is somehow 'viral' (to use MS terminology). To them, releasing drivers means letting their intellectual property secrets out into the open, which elimiates any competitive edge that company may have had. This is really where the problems start to come to light. Apple, while dependent on 3rd. party companies to provide certain hardware (and software), largely controls both the hardware specs and the UI, making a far more homogenous package. M$ leverages hardware as well due to its large installation base and in some cases has produced or has had hardware produced under the M$ name to M$ specs, sometimes in a duopoly with Intel. This is also where the Linux business model is partially faulty. Linux is too dependent on hardware manufacturers, as well as splitting efforts too often between, similar GUI or programs. A viable OS is not just based on hardware or software, but a combination of both. Is Linux really too dependent on hardware manufacturers? After all, there are open source drivers for most major pieces of hardware, developed independently of the manufacturers. Even ATI and Nvidia video cards have open source drivers (in addition to proprietary ones from the companies themselves). Linux has not succeeded in leveraging hardware developers to any meaningful extent as far as I am concerned. GNU/Linux runs on almost any hardware platform imaginable, from tiny embedded devices to mainframes and supercomputers. Windows and MacOS can't do this, and for the most part they are tied to x86 and PPC respectively. GNU/Linux may not have much desktop market share, but it is incredibly strong in other areas (e.g. servers). IBM, for example, are adopting it for its entire hardware line, literally ranging from wristwatches to supercomputers. Sun, Compaq and HP are adopting it as well, and they all have pumped significant amounts of money into open source development. Last year, IBM spent about $US1 billion on GNU/Linux, and in that same period they recouped almost all of it. If that isn't leveraging hardware developers then I don't know what is. The reality is somewhat different: Linux (i.e. the kernel) is licensed under a modified GPL which allows proprietary binary-only modules. Companies like Nvidia have taken advantage of this, and have released very capable drivers. 3dfx and Matrox went one step further by openly co-operating with open source hackers to produce open drivers. Why does Windows seemingly have such great hardware support? Because it has over 90% of the desktop OS market, it cannot be ignored by hardware manufacturers. Do you really think that MS write their own hardware drivers? This does not ignore the fact that most Linux advocacy is done in the area of trying to get hardware producers to support open specifications for Linux drivers or to use Linux in the embedded chip market. What prevents a dedicated Linux group from producing a sound card, video card, etc. that is made for the Linux market? The same goes for PDA's. Sharp's new Zaurus prototype using Linux looks great, but who says that others can't build a better mouse trap? Is it maybe because the market isn't there yet? I'm not sure, but Linux advocacy reminds me a lot of the Mac advocacy that I saw some years ago, when Apple kept losing market share. Lastly, coding for Linux projects, whether they are for the kernel or specific software such as drivers or other things can easily be shared on the Internet. If someone drops out or burns out, there is usually someone else that joins the team and helps out. Physical production can't be shared on the Internet for obvious reasons (Beam Me Up Scotty)!, it requires
