Re: [SLE] SuSE opens Linux desktop for Windows
"Matthew Johnson" <matthew@psychohorse.com> wrote in message news:<17C25285A1EAEF46BB355A6F4B05874507C738@fileserver.bciassoc.net>...
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 10:45, Bryan Tyson wrote:
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 11:26, Dmitry wrote:
Including Crossover is completely wrong decigion
I agree. Let's stop wasting time trying to make Windows apps run on Linux and put the resources into developing quality native apps.
I agree, but trust me an awful lot of people won't use it unless the application they use happens to say Microsoft Office. If you were a world dictator and ordered MSFT to remove MS Office in its current form and use StarOffice/OpenOffice in its current form I would lay bets that people would probably rave about it being the best yet...
*Hopefully* those people coming over will experiment with Open Source offerings also and decide on using those instead of Ms Office.
The biggest shame imho is WebSphere Homepage builder for Linux, real Wine hack labelled as Linux software. Most unfortunate as I was interested in it.
Matt
I'm one of those long-time Windows users learning how to use Linux, and I thought that this news blurb was worthy of the Mighty Microsoft Marketing Machine trying to find a way to keep M$ Office from not being used at all. I've used Star Office 5.2, and am now using OpenOffice that came with SuSE 8.1 Pro. It baffles me why an open source vendor would shoot the movement in the foot with announcements like that..... even some of us goofy Windows users recognize the efficiency of native apps. -Jeff
On Thursday 31 October 2002 01.33, Jeff lists wrote:
even some of us goofy Windows users recognize the efficiency of native apps.
This is a common misconception. Applications running under wine are running native. There is no runtime translation of instructions in wine. Wine Is Not an Emulator :) wine is a reimplementation of the windows libraries. There is no technical reason why applications linking to the wine libs couldn't run as fast as under windows proper, or even faster. There is anecdotal evidence that certain games running under wine run faster than under windows. Anders
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 31 October 2002 01.33, Jeff lists wrote:
even some of us goofy Windows users recognize the efficiency of native apps.
This is a common misconception. Applications running under wine are running native. There is no runtime translation of instructions in wine. Wine Is Not an Emulator :) wine is a reimplementation of the windows libraries. There is no technical reason why applications linking to the wine libs couldn't run as fast as under windows proper, or even faster. There is anecdotal evidence that certain games running under wine run faster than under windows.
Anders
If you'ld like some benchmarks of games running in Wine in Linux compared to games running in Windblows I'd be more than happy to set up a few (e.g. 1/2 a dozen or more) and post the findings. Mostly if the game will run in Wine (which most will if you fine tune/tweak those that are difficult) they tend to run faster and since the graphics in linux do better OpenGL calls (at least in my opinion), they then to be a bit more resolute and defined, not to mention smoother. Also, if you run said games/apps in a simple, or sleeker GUI such as black box, windowmaker, or similar the performance only gets better. WINE stands for "W"ine "I"s "N"ot an "E"mulator. The work of Transgaming focuses on DirectX calls while the lastest CVS for OpenGL in Wine is the slickest of the two. I just patch the OpenGL Wine CVS into an existing Wine install and BAM..., nice and crisp OpenGL for Windows based games. Ya, I'd prefer vendor support and writes for Linux base games, and I have bought or dl'ed games/patch made for Linux. I find no problems with this at all. But, since that schister at Loki games screwed his employees, vendors, games makers, client/gamers, and the Linux gaming community in the process, Linux gaming has been at a virtual stand still. Just get the M$ junkies into the Linux box, then work on fully converting them to "native" Linux apps. I would rather see an Office Suite made for and by Linux, but in the interim I think getting more than just your foot in the door is what this is all about. Cheers, Curtis.
On Thursday 31 October 2002 04.37, Curtis Rey wrote:
Linux gaming has been at a virtual stand still.
Note that the recent release of Unreal Tournament 2003 from Epic came with both Windows and Linux binaries in the box. Things are happening, slowly but surely
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 19:41, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 31 October 2002 04.37, Curtis Rey wrote:
Linux gaming has been at a virtual stand still.
Note that the recent release of Unreal Tournament 2003 from Epic came with both Windows and Linux binaries in the box.
Things are happening, slowly but surely
Slowly but surely :). At least larger companies (id is and always has been an exception) have been slowly joining the band wagon. For those interested in NeverWinter Nights, well once it comes out I may make a module...Quest for the Chamleaon :). Be fun to have NPC's named like Grub, Lilo, Manpage, chmod etc. Matt
* Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [021030 19:41]: ->On Thursday 31 October 2002 04.37, Curtis Rey wrote: ->> Linux gaming has been at a virtual stand still. -> ->Note that the recent release of Unreal Tournament 2003 from Epic came with ->both Windows and Linux binaries in the box. -> ->Things are happening, slowly but surely Yes, but if you are like me. Your perfectly good 64M DDR ATI card is as useless as telling Shrub that it's "Fool me once..shame on you..Fool me twice..shame on me." This game has to use nVidia cards w/ their binary only drivers to work under Linux. Oh sure you can get it to run with ATI cards but you must purchase XiG's $99 closed source Xserver. That's rich..a $99 Xserver for a $40 game. :) I will NEVER understand why all these 3D specs are not open source. After all game companies make money selling games..chip makers with chipsets and card makers with the cards. If the API's and specs were open for the world to use then the people who put a lot of effort into XFree couple build in support for it. More games and cards would be sold. Oh well..guess I just play games with my PS/2 that's attached to my nice 36' T.V. w/ surround sound. :) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I tell you what you should see.
Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [021030 19:41]: ->On Thursday 31 October 2002 04.37, Curtis Rey wrote: ->> Linux gaming has been at a virtual stand still. -> ->Note that the recent release of Unreal Tournament 2003 from Epic came with ->both Windows and Linux binaries in the box. -> ->Things are happening, slowly but surely
Yes, but if you are like me. Your perfectly good 64M DDR ATI card is as useless as telling Shrub that it's "Fool me once..shame on you..Fool me twice..shame on me." This game has to use nVidia cards w/ their binary only drivers to work under Linux. Oh sure you can get it to run with ATI cards but you must purchase XiG's $99 closed source Xserver. That's rich..a $99 Xserver for a $40 game. :)
I will NEVER understand why all these 3D specs are not open source. After all game companies make money selling games..chip makers with chipsets and card makers with the cards. If the API's and specs were open for the world to use then the people who put a lot of effort into XFree couple build in support for it. More games and cards would be sold.
Oh well..guess I just play games with my PS/2 that's attached to my nice 36' T.V. w/ surround sound. :)
Oh, sure. Kill the PC gaming market. Use our PS2 with you big screen TV and you nice Dolby/THX sound system and see if I care. Now, you wanna explain to my wife, who already thinks I'm addicted to PC games, my rationale for buying a PS2 and hogging up the TV??? Well, well, how to I solve this conumdrum??? Lotta help you are (hehe). :) Curtis
* Curtis Rey (crrey@charter.net) [021030 23:54]: ->> ->Oh, sure. Kill the PC gaming market. Use our PS2 with you big screen ->TV and you nice Dolby/THX sound system and see if I care. Now, you ->wanna explain to my wife, who already thinks I'm addicted to PC games, ->my rationale for buying a PS2 and hogging up the TV??? Well, well, how ->to I solve this conumdrum??? Lotta help you are (hehe). :) -> Well. I would let you know that 4 out of the 9 games we have are hers and she's an eBay addict. So it evens out. ;) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I tell you what you should see.
On Thursday 31 October 2002 08.21, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
Yes, but if you are like me. Your perfectly good 64M DDR ATI card is as useless as telling Shrub that it's "Fool me once..shame on you..Fool me twice..shame on me." This game has to use nVidia cards w/ their binary only drivers to work under Linux. Oh sure you can get it to run with ATI cards but you must purchase XiG's $99 closed source Xserver. That's rich..a $99 Xserver for a $40 game. :)
That's one way of looking at it. Another is "$99 for an X server that works, under which my $40 games actually run." You could use the X server for more than a game couldn't you? btw I have an nvidia card. nvidia may be binary only but they have traditionally given the linux community outstanding support. I like that and will continue to support them, binary or no.
I will NEVER understand why all these 3D specs are not open source. After all game companies make money selling games..chip makers with chipsets and card makers with the cards. If the API's and specs were open for the world to use then the people who put a lot of effort into XFree couple build in support for it. More games and cards would be sold.
Get back to me when the old ATI *open* specs get good implementations. I heard so much about the ATI community support, and yet I could never get any to work worth a damn. nvidia's drivers just work. Anders
Well, I don't know about ATI drivers. But, outside of a few problems getting the drivers in certain releases to behave I have had pretty good results with Nvidia in linux. In fact if I have to futz with them I have always found a way to got them to work. I have had repeated problems with M$ OS and any video drivers. I used to own a Voodoo3-2000 and also have had a few Nvidia cards. And it just doesn't matter what card/drivers you use, it's usually always the same with M$ OSes. In Windows the best way, of course, is to completely uninstall the old drivers before updating to a newer version. This is to avoid having old registry entries and possible cross-linked *.dll's (which can at times wreek havoc). Generally in Linux I usually just have to do either and "rpm -Uhv", with an occasional "--force and/or --nodeps" or just a "make install" and all the old stuff is over written. No registry, maybe an edit of the X config. Try that in Windows, muck the registry and see how well the OS boots - HA! I have been intrigued by ATI's 9700, especially since I understand the chip is much more programmable, down to the assmebly level in some cases. Means that the program can make some specific calls and utlilze the hardware on a deeper level. It has been kicking the crap out of Nvidia cards in benchmarks and real world tests. I really hope that ATI gets the drivers for Linux up to speed though. All in all, my GF3-Ti200 is still giving me nice fps and good T&L. Cheers, Curtis
Get back to me when the old ATI *open* specs get good implementations. I heard so much about the ATI community support, and yet I could never get any to work worth a damn. nvidia's drivers just work.
Anders
Anders Johansson <andjoh@rydsbo.net> [Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:39:31 +0100]:
You could use the X server for more than a game couldn't you?
Yeah, and have a Xserver that'll possibly break when I switch to another kernel or other libraries. No thanks!
but they have traditionally given the linux community outstanding support.
What, please, do you call outstanding support? I don't want to recall the troubles I had with the Nvidia drivers. And looking at the trouble, binary only drivers have caused for SuSE, I've decided to plainly refuse to run binary only drivers if I can avoid it. Binary only apps I can live with (grudgingly), but bo drivers are just simply BAD. Even some core XFree86 developers agree that it was a bad idea to introduce the modular design, given the way vendors have abused it to create bo xfree modules.
I heard so much about the ATI community support, and yet I could never get any to work worth a damn.
Oh, my Radeon 7500 @work is running beautifully without a problem. Philipp -- Philipp Thomas work: pthomas@suse.de Development SuSE Linux AG private: pth@t-link.de
On Saturday 02 November 2002 04.52, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Anders Johansson <andjoh@rydsbo.net> [Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:39:31 +0100]:
You could use the X server for more than a game couldn't you?
Yeah, and have a Xserver that'll possibly break when I switch to another kernel or other libraries. No thanks!
As opposed to an X server that breaks without doing anything at all?
but they have traditionally given the linux community outstanding support.
What, please, do you call outstanding support?
Fixing bugs as they appear. Giving the linux community the same 3D capabilities that the windows drivers have. Producing linux drivers at the same time as windows drivers fot new graphics cards.
I don't want to recall the troubles I had with the Nvidia drivers.
I haven't had any. I have had real problems with ATI cards though. I don't think it's a binary/open source issue.
And looking at the trouble, binary only drivers have caused for SuSE, I've decided to plainly refuse to run binary only drivers if I can avoid it.
Your choice, of course.
Binary only apps I can live with (grudgingly), but bo drivers are just simply BAD. Even some core XFree86 developers agree that it was a bad idea to introduce the modular design,
X is designed?
given the way vendors have abused it to create bo xfree modules.
Round objects! There are two types of vendors in this world. Those who release specs to produce open source drivers, and those who don't. Linux has to support both if 'regular' windows users are to be won over. The fact that the kernel *still* doesn't have a stable ABI to support vendor provided modules on CDs shipped with the hardware is to my mind the biggest disgrace in the kernel design. I have no ideological reasons for using linux, I use it because it's better than windows, but I really want my hardware to work. Whether it's by binary only drivers or with open source drivers, I really don't care as long as it works. Anders
/"I have no ideological reasons for using linux, I use it because it's better than windows, but I really want my hardware to work. Whether it's by binary only drivers or with open source drivers, I really don't care as long as it works. / / //Anders " / I couldn't agree more. If converting M$ drones is going to happen then the "I really don't care as long as it works" is going to be the attitude of Joe and Jane Average. They lead fairly busy lives and really don't want to have to tinker with things like a PC --they just want them to work-- and that's their bottom line. Look at things from Joe and Jane Average's point of view. I don't have to program my TV, I just turn it on, and as for my VCR... well my brother set that up and now it works fine. As far as my cable box from my cable tv subscription, well the guy that installed it said to turn on the TV and the Box on and it would take about 1/2 hour for all the stuff to link up with the cable company and then I would be able to watch my new cable TV and if it didn't to call the support and have them fix it. Linux has the talent in the programmers and the ability to do essentially anything anyone else is doing, that goes for the GUI, hardware, an Office Suite, etc... I't just a matter of will and focus. Most people don't want to think about how things work, they just want them to work.... after all, why should they? It's their money and they'll spend it on "what ever works". Cheers, Curtis.
On Saturday 02 November 2002 02:42, Curtis Rey wrote:
Linux has the talent in the programmers and the ability to do essentially anything anyone else is doing, that goes for the GUI, hardware, an Office Suite, etc... I't just a matter of will and focus. Most people don't want to think about how things work, they just want them to work.... after all, why should they? It's their money and they'll spend it on "what ever works".
Cheers, Curtis.
I just thought of a something, and is that in my extensive Windows experience, I've seen the same hardware problems and such as people have with SuSE on thier hardware. The largest difference is that the computer manufacturers themselves modify Windows so that it works right with all of the hardware that they provide. Typically, Joe and Jane average user don't buy a computer, then by an operating system. They buy a computer pre-loaded with an operating system on it, which of course "just works" because the manufacturer makes it work. Now, some of the GUI and office suite issues that have cropped up will need to be polished off by the Linux community, and I certaintly think that the community has both the will and focus to do just that. The largest problem, IMHO, is hardware support. This issue permeates to all areas of the system, and no Linux vendor can support all of the models of even the current shipping brand-name PC's on the market today. TO do so would require a testing lab that is insanely extensive. Heck, even M$ doesn't have those kind of testing facilities that I know of. Most of the time they rely on the manufacturers to do this. Which is why an important part of Linux permeating the average desktop is to get the PC vendors on board, which a few have already done so with the vanilla kernel source contribs, etc. Honestly, the movement probably will have to start with custom PC vendors validating distributions and shipping pre-loaded Linux desktops, with it spreading to brand-name systems afterwards. Dell already tried this, but I thnnk that they got really discouraged by the unethical busisness practices by M$, and it's hard to see them going at it full steam like they did before. Hopefully the DOJ case against M$ will help with this. It's going to be fairly slow going, but it will happen soon. With a community that is as large as the Linux community is today, I see serious potential for the marketing of Linux like it needs to have in order to take over the desktop. Just my 2 cents worth. Donavan Pantke
* Curtis Rey (crrey@charter.net) [021102 00:10]: ->I couldn't agree more. If converting M$ drones is going to happen then ->the "I really don't care as long as it works" is going to be the ->attitude of Joe and Jane Average. They lead fairly busy lives and ->really don't want to have to tinker with things like a PC --they just ->want them to work-- and that's their bottom line. Well. Windows doesn't "just work" in a lot of cases it's a lot of work. To keep running...depending on what you do with it. ->Look at things from Joe and Jane Averages point of view. I don't have ->to program my TV, I just turn it on, and as for my VCR... well my ->brother set that up and now it works fine. As far as my cable box from ->my cable tv subscription, well the guy that installed it said to turn on ->the TV and the Box on and it would take about 1/2 hour for all the stuff ->to link up with the cable company and then I would be able to watch my ->new cable TV and if it didn't to call the support and have them fix it. This argument doesn't wash. When TV's can play MP3's, browse the web, let them do their taxes.etc..etc..all from the same "unmodified" singular device then it would hold water. As it stands a PC is capable of 1000's of tasks. TV's, VCR's and the other things mentioned are singular, specialized devices that are task specific. Of course they don't have to configure their T.V..and as far as the cable box is concerned that's all remote control. And I guess since the slapping of MS's wrist...PC's will be come remote controlled devices as well. ->Linux has the talent in the programmers and the ability to do ->essentially anything anyone else is doing, that goes for the GUI, ->hardware, an Office Suite, etc... It's just a matter of will and focus. ->Most people don't want to think about how things work, they just want ->them to work.... after all, why should they? It's their money and ->they'll spend it on "what ever works". Yes, there are a lot of talented people out there..trying to figure out how to make something complex smart enough for people who don't actually care about what their using enough to learn about what their using. Maybe McNealy is right. There should be dumb terms installed in each house connected to some big brotherish mainframe that people who have 1/2 a thought in their heads control. Then again maybe not ..who knows. I do know this. A computer isn't' comparable to any other household item...not TV's..not VCR's. It's a complex system that was sold to the general consumer as a dumb device. I don't care what system you use..Mac, Windows or Linux. It takes some brain cells to use correctly...otherwise they should get Web-TV and be done with it. *grumble* /end rant. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I tell you what you should see.
Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Curtis Rey (crrey@charter.net) [021102 00:10]:
->I couldn't agree more. If converting M$ drones is going to happen then ->the "I really don't care as long as it works" is going to be the ->attitude of Joe and Jane Average. They lead fairly busy lives and ->really don't want to have to tinker with things like a PC --they just ->want them to work-- and that's their bottom line.
Well. Windows doesn't "just work" in a lot of cases it's a lot of work. To keep running...depending on what you do with it.
->Look at things from Joe and Jane Averages point of view. I don't have ->to program my TV, I just turn it on, and as for my VCR... well my ->brother set that up and now it works fine. As far as my cable box from ->my cable tv subscription, well the guy that installed it said to turn on ->the TV and the Box on and it would take about 1/2 hour for all the stuff ->to link up with the cable company and then I would be able to watch my ->new cable TV and if it didn't to call the support and have them fix it.
This argument doesn't wash. When TV's can play MP3's, browse the web, let them do their taxes.etc..etc..all from the same "unmodified" singular device then it would hold water. As it stands a PC is capable of 1000's of tasks. TV's, VCR's and the other things mentioned are singular, specialized devices that are task specific. Of course they don't have to configure their T.V..and as far as the cable box is concerned that's all remote control. And I guess since the slapping of MS's wrist...PC's will be come remote controlled devices as well.
->Linux has the talent in the programmers and the ability to do ->essentially anything anyone else is doing, that goes for the GUI, ->hardware, an Office Suite, etc... It's just a matter of will and focus. ->Most people don't want to think about how things work, they just want ->them to work.... after all, why should they? It's their money and ->they'll spend it on "what ever works".
Yes, there are a lot of talented people out there..trying to figure out how to make something complex smart enough for people who don't actually care about what their using enough to learn about what their using. Maybe McNealy is right. There should be dumb terms installed in each house connected to some big brotherish mainframe that people who have 1/2 a thought in their heads control. Then again maybe not ..who knows.
I do know this. A computer isn't' comparable to any other household item...not TV's..not VCR's. It's a complex system that was sold to the general consumer as a dumb device. I don't care what system you use..Mac, Windows or Linux. It takes some brain cells to use correctly...otherwise they should get Web-TV and be done with it.
*grumble* /end rant.
I totally understand your point. But, I have been spending time with people that have fscked windows pc's. They have no idea about patches (aka windows update) and I have to show them how to go to the web site and update IE, Outluck, etc.... They install antivirus SF 'cause someone told them they needed it, but once again they have never used the stuff in say.. Norton, like "online update". They're smart enough to put a CD into the drive and follow the instructions on how to install it. Some are smart enough to put things in other places and not just in C:/Program Files/whatever so they don't look befuddled when a program says they haven't enough disk space but they now the have 20 more gigs of HDD space...."what do you mean a different partitions"? Your absolutely right. They don't by PC's and then an OS. The buy a Dell and this is what I'm trying to say. To them it's just a fancy and confusing appliance. And many are terrified to do much with it because they're afraid they'll break it. To them it's a type writer, a movie player, a browser, and music station, a game station, a mail system all rolled up into one. They haven't the slightest idea why opening attachments from Outluck is such a problem and don't bother trying to explain it. They call a friend to install a new monitor or video card but don't bother to watch you so they will learn. Even worse, they pay some tech head $70+/hr to install a video card, an operation, that if done right, will take a whole 30 minutes and charge them for 3 hours work --not knowing that it only took the schmuck 30 minutes. A person just replied to this post and had the same notion as you and I. He stated the same thing, that people buy Dells, HP's Compaq's, etc.. and perhaps there should be a OEM that installs perconfigured Linux OSes on up to date PC's. Dell tried this, but between M$ and less then hoped for sales (though a little marketing on their part would've hurt either) the backed off. What I do see is many European governemts wanting to go to Open Source. Perhaps some European, or perhaps Asain, OEM will make PC's with Linux pre-installed. Then the masses will buy linux because it's cheaper, doesn't get many (if any viruses), and has good customer/community support. Not to mention that, if any of the vendors are like SuSE, they have frequent updates. Like it's been said, Windows has just as many problems as Linux but the PC OEM gets it to work with their stuff before they put it to market. So stuff like Nvidia, ATI, Sound Blaster, Maxtor, etc.., etc.., all help the OEM's that buy in bulk. Linux is still a bit too grass roots (not that I'm complaining) and needs a few PC OEM's, a little main stream marketing (besides IBM and business solutions). Then Joe and Jane Average will most like start to adopt Linux, much in the same manner that they do with Apple. Cheers, Curtis
On Saturday 02 November 2002 08.42, Curtis Rey wrote:
/"I have no ideological reasons for using linux, I use it because it's better than windows, but I really want my hardware to work. Whether it's by binary only drivers or with open source drivers, I really don't care as long as it works. / / //Anders " / I couldn't agree more. If converting M$ drones is going to happen then the "I really don't care as long as it works" is going to be the attitude of Joe and Jane Average.
Thank you for putting me in that category. Please don't take what I said too far. I was primarily talking about hardware drivers. When a regular program crashes I, being a trained programmer, can usually find if not the exact problem, then at least close enough to be able to put together a good enough bug report so that a person familiar with the source can fix it. For this open source is brilliant. With a hardware driver things are a little more complex. It's not enough to be a programmer, you also have to know a thing or two about the exact specifics of the hardware. It helps if you know about algorithm optimization too. Some programmers know about this, most don't, at least not very much. Hardware issues can be extremely complex, cf. the recent IDE/ATAPI debacle in the kernel. Hardware drivers also don't have the functionality of a user space program. More often than not they're just slinging data to and from the hardware. In the case of the nvidia driver there's a specific API, openGL for example, that needs to be implemented, and there's not much room for extra features. Bug fixes and optimizations perhaps, but features belong in user space programs not inside drivers. The exception being winmodems, winprinters and the like, but the less said about them the better. Some people say that with the nvidia kernel modules being binary only, it's almost impossible to debug kernel issues. Supposedly it's difficult to determine if a crash comes from the nvidia module or from something else. To this I say if a crash is repeatable, just repeat it without the nvidia driver loaded. Couldn't be simpler. If it isn't repeatable it's almost impossible to debug with or without source, so it doesn't matter, as far as I can see. Of course, if open source is a political/religious thing for you, none of the above matters. Fair enough, that's up to you. I prefer having drivers to not having drivers. Anders
Anders Johansson <andjoh@rydsbo.net> [Sat, 2 Nov 2002 05:37:16 +0100]:
I don't think it's a binary/open source issue.
Partly it is. Just one example: the open source nv driver accepts modelines the closed source nvidia driver rejects, without any documentation what-so-ever as to why.
X is designed?
Nice try :-) But things like DRM or the module loader in XFree86 are indeed designed.
Linux has to support both if 'regular' windows users are to be won over.
It does! But given that no one besides the vendor con look inside a closed source driver, it's impossible to say if the vendor is doing it right or not. I know of at least one closed source driver which does things that would cause an open driver to be rejected the instance it would hit lkml. I don't claim that this is always the case, but who can control it, given that there is no source to check?
The fact that the kernel *still* doesn't have a stable ABI to support vendor provided modules on CDs shipped with the hardware is to my mind the biggest disgrace in the kernel design.
The linux kernel is still a moving target and as such a stable API is impossible. For instance there is a discussion over changing the handling of modules to eliminate many problems the current interface can't handle (like safe removal of a module in a preemptive kernel). If a stable API had already been introduced, such changes would be nearly impossible.
I have no ideological reasons for using linux,
Neither have I. At least besides the fact that linux gives me more freedom to mess around with things :) For me as a developer/hacker, Linux is a huge playground that also allows me to earn my living :) Philipp -- Philipp Thomas work: pthomas@suse.de Development SuSE Linux AG private: pth@t-link.de
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 31 October 2002 01.33, Jeff lists wrote:
even some of us goofy Windows users recognize the efficiency of native apps.
This is a common misconception. Applications running under wine are running native. There is no runtime translation of instructions in wine. Wine Is Not an Emulator :) wine is a reimplementation of the windows libraries. There is no technical reason why applications linking to the wine libs couldn't run as fast as under windows proper, or even faster. There is anecdotal evidence that certain games running under wine run faster than under windows.
Problem is not in speed :-) Problem is in quality.
offerings also and decide on using those instead of Ms Office.
I'd like to add a comment regarding MS Office. There is no way that OpenOffice (or ANY other office product) is ever going to beat MS Office. Even if Open Office were to be better than MS Office some day, it still wouldn't. Today, even if companies wanted to use OpenOffice or some alternative product, they will be forced to use MS Office. The reason being that the US goverment (or at least the DoD that I am aware of) requires on government subcontracts for all documentation to be delivered in MS Word format. It used to be WordPerfect a few years ago. Back in those days even if you wanted to use Word, you had to use WordPerfect because that is what you customer wanted. If the customer (the government in this case) had been satisfied with Word Pefect for so long, then why switch to Word all of a sudden? What happened to all the investment that they had made in WordPefect? Clearly Bill Gates all upper management people in M$ have the power and contacts up there to influence such decisions. Who knows---they might have paid several individuals big $$$ to make the decision to switch to Word and dump WordPerfect. So unless the OpenOffice community can come up with some magic like that, I am afraid, we'll have to live with the piece of crap for the rest of our lives (Have you ever tried to create a large document in Word with Graphics?) What we need is the government make a decision for all documentation to be delivered in "XXXXX Office for Linux". Untill that happens, all of us will be slaves to Bill Gates. Salman
Salman Khilji wrote:
offerings also and decide on using those instead of Ms Office.
I'd like to add a comment regarding MS Office. There is no way that OpenOffice (or ANY other office product) is ever going to beat MS Office. Even if Open Office were to be better than MS Office some day, it still wouldn't.
Today, even if companies wanted to use OpenOffice or some alternative product, they will be forced to use MS Office. The reason being that the US goverment (or at least the DoD that I am aware of) requires on government subcontracts for all documentation to be delivered in MS Word format. It used to be WordPerfect a few years ago. Back in those days even if you wanted to use Word, you had to use WordPerfect because that is what you customer wanted.
If the customer (the government in this case) had been satisfied with Word Pefect for so long, then why switch to Word all of a sudden? What happened to all the investment that they had made in WordPefect? Clearly Bill Gates all upper management people in M$ have the power and contacts up there to influence such decisions. Who knows---they might have paid several individuals big $$$ to make the decision to switch to Word and dump WordPerfect.
So unless the OpenOffice community can come up with some magic like that, I am afraid, we'll have to live with the piece of crap for the rest of our lives (Have you ever tried to create a large document in Word with Graphics?) What we need is the government make a decision for all documentation to be delivered in "XXXXX Office for Linux". Untill that happens, all of us will be slaves to Bill Gates.
Salman
All you have to do, at least in Star Office 6 is to save you work in "Word" format - it does that. So, what would stop you from submitting something then? It is done simply because they are all running M$ Office and don't want to worry about incompibility - aka not being able to open the document and then getting someone's State Rep or Senator calling them up giving them a bad time ( Generals, Colonels, Majors, etc... hate dealing with politicians or the public for the matter). So, since all the government work stations are using M$ Office (and hence why all the things need to be in word/doc format) they mandate that so they can open the dumb thing. And for your info the presidents web sitie is running on Linux. Also, read Open Source is good for America - US military advised at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27822.html . To quote" "The report recommends the DoD create a "safe list" of approved products, encourage interoperability with commercial software, and promote it all round as A Good Thing. " And to read the official report, go to: http://www.egovos.org/pdf/dodfoss.pdf "The main conclusion of the analysis was that FOSS software plays a more critical role in the DoD than has generally been recognized. FOSS applications are most important in four broad areas: Infrastructure Support, Software Development, Security, and Research. One unexpected result was the degree to which Security depends on FOSS. Banning FOSS would remove certain types of infrastructure components (e.g., OpenBSD) that currently help support network security. It would also limit DoD access to--and overall expertise in--the use of powerful FOSS analysis and detection applications that hostile groups could use to help stage cyberattacks. Finally, it would remove the demonstrated ability of FOSS applications to be updated rapidly in response to new types of cyberattack. Taken together, these factors imply that banning FOSS would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and securityfocused DoD groups to defend against cyberattacks." Also: "...Create a "Generally Recognized As Safe" FOSS list. This list would provide quick official recognition of FOSS applications that are (a) commercially supported, (b) widely used, and (c) have proven track records of security and reliability--e.g., as measured by speed of closures of CERT reports in comparison to closed-source alternatives. Initial applications for consideration would include, but not be limited to, the set of 115 already used applications identified by the survey in Table 2, plus other widely used tools such as Python (http://www.python.org/) that did not appear in this first set of results. In formulating the list, quick consideration should be given in particular to high value, heavily used infrastructure and development tools such as Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Samba, Apache, Perl, GCC, GNAT, XFree86, OpenSSH, bind, and sendmail." And in the report it mentions 115 OSS programs, including Open Office. Most if not all programs are found in the SuSE Distro, as well as other Linux distros. Now, I'm not saying the the DoD is going to contract directly with SuSE (being that it's built and maintained in a foriegn country). However, IBM does alot of things with the DoD and has a "LONG" history with the DoD. I wouldn't be surprised to see having a SuSE distro in an IBM machine used in the DoD. Most likely anything that has to be sensitive is running on the NSA developed "Secure Linux". So, my friend. It's all about funding and contract cycles. The DoD and Congress go by the generally accepted 5 year plan with yearly budget adjustments. Ya, their more than likely backroom money deals going on. But if Bin Laden's buddies crack into an M$ machine and cause a problem, you and I may never hear about - but somebody will. Not to mention the money they will save by not buying per seat licenses for... you know who! Especially in the present economic climate (and the forth coming budget balanced against new mandates involving security). Just MHO, Curtis
offerings also and decide on using those instead of Ms Office.
I'd like to add a comment regarding MS Office. There is no way that OpenOffice (or ANY other office product) is ever going to beat MS Office. Even if Open Office were to be better than MS Office some day, it still wouldn't.
Today, even if companies wanted to use OpenOffice or some alternative
At 20:41 10/30/2002 -0800, Salman Khilji wrote: product,
they will be forced to use MS Office. The reason being that the US goverment (or at least the DoD that I am aware of) requires on government subcontracts for all documentation to be delivered in MS Word format. It used to be WordPerfect a few years ago. Back in those days even if you wanted to use Word, you had to use WordPerfect because that is what you customer wanted.
If the customer (the government in this case) had been satisfied with Word Pefect for so long, then why switch to Word all of a sudden? What happened to all the investment that they had made in WordPefect? Clearly Bill Gates all upper management people in M$ have the power and contacts up there to influence such decisions. Who knows---they might have paid several individuals big $$$ to make the decision to switch to Word and dump WordPerfect.
So unless the OpenOffice community can come up with some magic like that, I am afraid, we'll have to live with the piece of crap for the rest of our lives (Have you ever tried to create a large document in Word with Graphics?) What we need is the government make a decision for all documentation to be delivered in "XXXXX Office for Linux". Untill that happens, all of us will be slaves to Bill Gates.
Salman
Let's be realistic: When WordPerfect was taken over, and WP6 came out, WP6 was TERRIBLE. Ans so was WP8--I don't even remember a WP7. Even the latest version is not as nice as WP5.2, but you can't use WP5.2 because it can't read and convert from the modern WORD programs. I wish I could use WP5.2, it was wonderful. MSWord is no where near as nice, or as easy. But WordPerfect, when it was sold, just went down the tubes. Ce la vie. --doug
participants (10)
-
Anders Johansson -
Ben Rosenberg -
Curtis Rey -
Dmitry Melekhov -
Donavan Pantke -
Doug McGarrett -
Jeff lists -
Matthew Johnson -
Philipp Thomas -
Salman Khilji