thelinuxlink.net

jsusanka wrote:http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/46808/index.html

FYI, were talking to Dirk Hohndel form Intel on 3/22. I'm sure we'll bring this up.

Patrick wrote:

jsusanka wrote:http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/46808/index.html

FYI, were talking to Dirk Hohndel form Intel on 3/22. I'm sure we'll bring this up.

What I'd like you to do is ask him straight up: Why don't you support Linux on the desktop? What would it take to get you to do it? Why do you feel Linux is not ready?

Instead of having all this "Ohh Linux is not ready for the desktop"-crap without a real reason, let's come down to a flat reason! And then lets let the community know so we can fix that shit!

linux is ready for the desktop - I truly believe that. I also believe it is a lot more ready than windows. For every reason they say linux is not ready I can give more reasons why windows is not ready. I think this article proves you don't need windows for an excellent computer experience. I really do think this article has a lot of truth to it.

It is nothing but politics and user impressions. my family uses nothing but linux and we get by just fine. I get pissed at things like macromedia doesn't support amd 64 or the ppc on linux - to me there is just no excuse for that. If you are going to have something on the web you can't limit your customers to buying specific hardware. you just can't - to me that is where legislation needs to step in - something about anti-competiveness - either support everything or get the fxxx off the the web. it's like saying what if I wanted to buy a ford car but I could only wear ford blue pants when I am driving it otherwise I can't drive it. of course ford would get subsidized from a company that makes ford blue pants. you know consumers would be all over that but yet the same thing happens in the pc business daily and the government just lets it slide.

jsusanka wrote:linux is ready for the desktop - I truly believe that.

Well said dude! I fully agree with ya!

jsusanka wrote:I also believe it is a lot more ready than windows. For every reason they say linux is not ready I can give more reasons why windows is not ready. I think this article proves you don't need windows for an excellent computer experience. I really do think this article has a lot of truth to it. It is nothing but politics and user impressions. my family uses nothing but linux and we get by just fine.

In fact, you could argue that you NEED Linux for an exellent computer experience, because of all the security and reliability issues that Windows has.

jsusanka wrote:I get pissed at things like macromedia doesn't support amd 64 or the ppc on linux - to me there is just no excuse for that. If you are going to have something on the web you can't limit your customers to buying specific hardware. you just can't - to me that is where legislation needs to step in - something about anti-competiveness - either support everything or get the fxxx off the the web. it's like saying what if I wanted to buy a ford car but I could only wear ford blue pants when I am driving it otherwise I can't drive it. of course ford would get subsidized from a company that makes ford blue pants. you know consumers would be all over that but yet the same thing happens in the pc business daily and the government just lets it slide.

Or if you bought a Ford you could only drive on blue streets, not the green ones that Mercedes uses

I hope the GNU folks can get Gnash and their Java stuff to a usable state quickly so those of us who use Macromedia and Sun's stuff can rid our boxes of this crap.

jsusanka wrote:http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/46808/index.html

I guess I don't see the point of this whole thing. How does Intel not support Linux, and why do we care?

Linux works on Intel processors, motherboards, graphics cards and ethernet cards. They support Linux better than most hardware manufacturers.

If they're actively working against Linux adoption that sucks, but I don't see why we care about Intel. Intel doesn't decide what OS I use.

Gomer_X wrote:If they're actively working against Linux adoption that sucks, but I don't see why we care about Intel. Intel doesn't decide what OS I use.

;if MS has their way, the "trusted computing" platform will do just that, as i understand it.

"in soviet russia, the PC chooses you."

;treehead

treehead wrote:

Gomer_X wrote:If they're actively working against Linux adoption that sucks, but I don't see why we care about Intel. Intel doesn't decide what OS I use.

;if MS has their way, the "trusted computing" platform will do just that, as i understand it.

"in soviet russia, the PC chooses you."

;treehead

Hey if you go to Circuit City you're buying a "Windows PC", you better not take the OS off of that machine!

If Microsoft were do to a sort of thing like that in Europa, I tell ya the EC would be REALLY pissed off!

treehead wrote:

Gomer_X wrote:If they're actively working against Linux adoption that sucks, but I don't see why we care about Intel. Intel doesn't decide what OS I use.

;if MS has their way, the "trusted computing" platform will do just that, as i understand it.

I remember all the flack over the CPU serial number when the Pentium 3 came out. People were outraged and Intel eventually shipped the chips with the ID off by default. Since then I'm hearing plenty of unrest even among Windows users against this kind of control and lock-in.

If Microsoft and Intel try to decide what software you can run on your PC, people will rebel. There are plenty of hardware and software vendors besides Intel and Microsoft.

If there is a market for hardware and software that's not locked down, someone will fill it.

Gomer_X wrote:If there is a market for hardware and software that's not locked down, someone will fill it.

I hope so. After listening to Timothy Miller of the Open Graphics project on LugRadio, I am somewhat hopeful that some day we can have an open graphics chip with drivers. I am more than happy to put my money where my mouth is by paying for open hardware, and I try to as best I can, but it's hard when there are limited choices. For example, my Dell 700m laptop came with a wifi minipci card with closed drivers. It worked perfectly fine in Linux with ndiswrapper, but I specifically went out and spent an extra $40 or whatever to buy an Intel mini pci card so I could use the open-source Intel ipw2200 drivers instead. I even sent Intel an email and told them about my purchase and let them know that their decision to release open drivers affected my purchasing habits.

How cool would it be if there was a hardware company that stepped up to the plate and decided to make hardware that was fully supported in Linux with all free drivers? I mean modems, wifi cards, graphics cards, etc.

I will buy hardware from any company that supports Linux and is dedicated to providing Linux-compatible hardware with open drivers, and I'll even pay a premium for such hardware. If I could buy an nvidia card for $100 and a comparable open graphics card for $150, I would buy the open graphics card.

Why can't these companies realize that there really are users who will pay for open hardware???

Chess wrote:Why can't these companies realize that there really are users who will pay for open hardware???

;because we're outnumbered by the sheeple, chess. we always will be.

;treehead

treehead wrote: ;because we're outnumbered by the sheeple, chess. we always will be.
;treehead

Ain't that the truth.

Chess wrote:Why can't these companies realize that there really are users who will pay for open hardware???

Well, in NVIDIA's case, the problem is in multiple places, right now, ATi's hardware is a little superior, their drivers suck though, so NVIDIA probably won't like it if ATi could look at NVIDIA's really really good drivers and figure out how to make the quality of their drivers more like NVIDIA's, and also, I seem to remember reading something about NVIDIA having code in their driver that doesn't actually belong to them.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Well, in NVIDIA's case, the problem is in multiple places, right now, ATi's hardware is a little superior, their drivers suck though, so NVIDIA probably won't like it if ATi could look at NVIDIA's really really good drivers and figure out how to make the quality of their drivers more like NVIDIA's, and also, I seem to remember reading something about NVIDIA having code in their driver that doesn't actually belong to them.

Yeah, I know. My question was more rhetorical, I guess.