Linux is for sale on ebay!

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Personally, I think all of the people buying/selling MMORPG accounts on eBay are much stupider, over $100 for a lvl 60 WoW character with everything already finished and on top of that you now get to pay for one more account's monthly fee.

I have no use for a clone of windows!

If you truly believe that Linux is a Windows clone, you're extremely misinformed.

When Linux gets gaming support.. I'll be so there.

Linux has great gaming support. It's the game producer's that don't support Linux. Look at Epic and id, they're known for producing some of the best FPS engines of all time and they manage to support Linux, although epic isn't as good about it as id is.

they realize there's no competition, of course they make games with linux support! 😉

at least half of the 100 or so linux users have to be gamers!

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Gee, thanks soviet. I need a copy of Linux, and I'm stuck on dial-up; no broadband access available here. Does that make me "stupid enough to buy it" or are you just so stupid you don't realize that broadband isn't universal?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't give my location up for broadband access either.

not to mention that you would need a dvd/cd burner, which isn't universal either.

 

[Nothinman]

they realize there's no competition, of course they make games with linux support!

My point was that if the 2 main FPS developers in the wold can do it, there's no technical reason that other companies can't do it too.

at least half of the 100 or so linux users have to be gamers!

I realize this is a joke, but the funniest part is just how unrealistic it really is. Hell there's around a thousand developers in Debian alone.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

they realize there's no competition, of course they make games with linux support!

My point was that if the 2 main FPS developers in the wold can do it, there's no technical reason that other companies can't do it too.

there are a lot more then 2 main fps developers that do it.

Right now there is no real technical limitations to using Linux for gaming. Arguably linux can be superior for a more then a few reasons.

Thing is nowadays everything is about maintaining the status quo, as far as I can tell. Major game makers are people like EA, Microsoft, and only a few others. Any smaller company that makes a nice new game, they get bought out. They make fistfulls of money by regurgitating the same game types over and over again and don't want anything to change that.

If you go looking around for 'indie' game makers you'd see a much higher percentage of them making native Linux versions.

 

[egkenny]

I have been using linux for 9 years. I agree that linux is easy to install now. That is not the whole picture. Unless you have a simple widely used hardware the chances that all you're hardware will work after installation is less thant 50%. Sometimes with a lot of searching you can find drivers that will make your hardware work. Most times the drivers are partially functional because the author had not fullly reverse engineered the hardware. Most manufactures prrovide little or no support for the volunteers that try to provide drivers for linux users. A lot of hardware never has and never will be supported in Linux.

Here are examples of hardware problems:

True internal hardware modems are almost nonexistent today. Linux best supports these If you are lucky your soft modem can be made to work.

I have a laptop with a Nvidia display chipset. The driver included with linux works mostly but has its problems. The drivers from Nvidia have gotten better but still have serious problems.

I once tried a demo of scanner software that had a Linux version (Windows version also available). After finding it crashed a lot I complained to the author. His response was to send me the code in the area responsible and told me to fix it if I did not like it.

I was happy to see HP start providing some support for their printers. The driver for my printer worked but gave poor results compared to the Windows driver.

As you can see Linux has a long way to go. Linux will only be seen on par with Windows when manufactures are convinced to provide drivers of equal equality for both Windows and Linux. They must also provide timely updates as needed.

 

[Nothinman]

True internal hardware modems are almost nonexistent today. Linux best supports these If you are lucky your soft modem can be made to work.

ALSA supposedly supports the i810 modem in my notebook, but I don't have a phone line to test it.

I have a laptop with a Nvidia display chipset. The driver included with linux works mostly but has its problems. The drivers from Nvidia have gotten better but still have serious problems.

I have had virtually no problems with the nvidia drivers, and only relating to resuming from suspend. Regular usage is fine.

I once tried a demo of scanner software that had a Linux version (Windows version also available). After finding it crashed a lot I complained to the author. His response was to send me the code in the area responsible and told me to fix it if I did not like it.

So? Most commercial software vendors won't do anything either and in that cause you have no recourse, at least with the broken OSS software you can find someone who can fix it.

As you can see Linux has a long way to go. Linux will only be seen on par with Windows when manufactures are convinced to provide drivers of equal equality for both Windows and Linux. They must also provide timely updates as needed.

IMO most Linux drivers are of higher quality than the Windows ones provided by the manufacturer. Of course some things, most notably things like scanners and printers, need special protocols that manufacturers won't release so you end up with barely functional drivers since HP, Epson, etc won't cooperate. For a printer I would spend the extra money and get one that I know speaks postscript and for a scanner I have no real experience with them but places like CompUSA let you return hardware for any reason so you could probably find a decent one with a little trial and error.

 

[egkenny]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I have a laptop with a Nvidia display chipset. The driver included with linux works mostly but has its problems. The drivers from Nvidia have gotten better but still have serious problems.

I have had virtually no problems with the nvidia drivers, and only relating to resuming from suspend. Regular usage is fine.

I should not totally blame Nvidia. The display driver not the graphics one is probably the blame. Since the LCD in a laptop is totally integrated the manufacturer does not have to make the interface standard like what is required for standalone monitors.

The only time one really needs the graphics driver from Nvidia is if you need hardware acceleration. This is true for most games today.

Here is an example of what you are also up against. Suppose you are running Windows XP and do the usual Windows update. After you reboot you can not get into Windows but are left with a C: prompt. The graphics and/or display driver was broken by the update! You would be normal if you were very unhappy with Microsoft.

That is what happens with linux if the kernel is replaced as part of the update. If you are using the accelerated driver from Nvidia. You must rebuild the driver when the kernel is replaced. Otherwise you can not get into the graphical X Windows any more.

 

[drag]

People use mostly windows because of two reasons that I see:

1. Because they've been using windows for years,
They've had it for years, are used to it by now and most of the software they use works with windows, and much of it only works with windows.
Businesses have built their businesses and workflows around Windows and have managed to minimize it's numerious flaws by adapting changes to accomidate this. Moving to Linux would require them to change aspects of their business to accomidate the different way of doing things.. this is expensive and intimidating.

2. Windows comes pre-installed.
Most people don't have to experiance the huge pain in the @ss it is to install Windows. Hardware manufacturers spend millions and millions of dollars making sure that their stuff will work well with Windows. Microsoft is even dictates design considerations to the hardware makers so that they can make stuff that fits into window's way of doing things. The vast majority of people I know can't install Linux, but they can't install Windows either. They are forced to use what their computer comes with.

Nowadays it's mostly a chicken and the egg problem.

Linux hardware support is excellent, it's better then any other OS out there.. including Windows. (try installing Windows on a PPC machine some time), but newest hardware is difficult becuase most hardware makers can't afford to spend much time on Linux support.

One major example of how it can work is in server-level hardware. Linux has already broken through there. According to the $$ amount Linux has about 11% of all server sales in dollar amount, from big name vendors, and most of those is in dual and quad cpu machines. Oracle supposadly has 40-50% of it's total sales specificly for Linux systems, which is bigger amount then any other OS. In terms of total amount of servers aviable Linux probably accounts for a much higher percentage of total number of servers then sales dollars amount. This is because the numerious amounts of single cpu machines that get built in-house or from whitebox vendors. All major vendors, HP/Dell/IBM/etc etc and almost all 2nd tier vendors sell and support Linux servers. It's all very big business.

Some, such as IBM, HP, and SGI, put lots of time, money, and developers into Linux hardware support, performance, and stability. IF their hardware performs best with Linux it can be a significant advantage in the market place.

In terms of server-level hardware it's going to be difficult to find stuff that doesn't support Linux well. If you don't support Linux on the server, then your going to be automaticly locking yourself out of 10-20% of potential sales and nobody wants that.

The whole thing about API instability in the Linux kernel only matters to closed source drivers. If you OSS drivers (and most people do) and your able to get your drivers into the kernel proper, then the Linux developers will go out of their way to specificly make sure that drivers work in he next Linux kernel version.

If Linux can get to 10-20% on the desktop, then I figure the same thing can happen for desktop systems. You'll get automatic hardware support, vendors will be selling machines specificly designed to work well with Linux, hardware makers will test and release documentation for their products.. so on and so forth.

But it's all about what comes first.. the chicken or the egg? Preinstalled machines specificly configured to work well with Linux is a must for mass appeal, but that's not to happen untill you get mass appeal first. Its screwy.

Right now the developers and such are doing what they can to modernize the desktop (opengl driven desktop for instance) and are targetting business desktop. If they can get business desktop, then home users will want Linux so that they can do their work at home. Also OSS developers are working hard to make all their software cross-platform with Linux and windows.

For instance O😵rg works just as well in Linux and Windows. Firefox works as well as Linux as in Windows. Thunderbird, too. And quite a few other fairly substantial programs. By having people use cross-platform and inexpensive apps it makes it easier for them to run in Linux. In Windows you have to install firefox seperately.. you have to install a office suite seperately.. but in Linux all that stuff is setup by default.

Once home users get Linux@home then they will start wanting more games that work on it, and that's how they figure that Linux will end up getting that 10-20% needed to break the Microsoft monopoly.

It's already happenning in a limited fasion. For instance Intel is the most popular hardware developer for business desktops. Everybody uses Pentium and Celeron cpus. Intel chipsets are dominate and their embedded video chips are the most common video devices in the world. Intel makes sure to release documentation and drivers to make these things work well in Linux and they are sure to appeal to Linux geeks by sticking Linux references in most things they do. If you go buy a 'Centrino' laptop you can be sure that as long as it's all intel it will work in Linux one way or another.

 

[Nothinman]

I should not totally blame Nvidia. The display driver not the graphics one is probably the blame. Since the LCD in a laptop is totally integrated the manufacturer does not have to make the interface standard like what is required for standalone monitors.

I have never seen a laptop with a non-standard LCD. They all just show up as normal monitors off of a card on the AGP/PCI(-X) bus.

The only time one really needs the graphics driver from Nvidia is if you need hardware acceleration. This is true for most games today.

Or if you want usably fast 2D operations, I tried using the 'nv' driver on my notebook and at 1600x1050 it was noticably laggy and I couldn't put up with it. The 3D acceleration is nice for the 3D xscreensavers but I don't play a lot of games on my notebook even though they run fine, so I would have been fine with using 'nv' if it had decent performance.

Here is an example of what you are also up against. Suppose you are running Windows XP and do the usual Windows update. After you reboot you can not get into Windows but are left with a C: prompt. The graphics and/or display driver was broken by the update! You would be normal if you were very unhappy with Microsoft.

If the display driver was broken by the update, chances are that the box will BSOD on boot and you'll never see an interactive prompt until you boot from the CD and start a rescue operation.

That is what happens with linux if the kernel is replaced as part of the update. If you are using the accelerated driver from Nvidia. You must rebuild the driver when the kernel is replaced. Otherwise you can not get into the graphical X Windows any more.

And if you're using a distribution maintained kernel and nvidia driver you don't have to worry about it. Even Debian has packages with the nvidia driver compiled for most of their kernels and even if one isn't available module-assistant makes compiling a new one for the current kernel simple.

 

[egkenny]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I should not totally blame Nvidia. The display driver not the graphics one is probably the blame. Since the LCD in a laptop is totally integrated the manufacturer does not have to make the interface standard like what is required for standalone monitors.

I have never seen a laptop with a non-standard LCD. They all just show up as normal monitors off of a card on the AGP/PCI(-X) bus.

The laptop has a 1280x800 LCD. With Fedora Core 2 I was able to get it working with a modeline entry. That fix did not work with Fedora Core 3. I have not tried Fedora 4 yet.

The only time one really needs the graphics driver from Nvidia is if you need hardware acceleration. This is true for most games today.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Or if you want usably fast 2D operations, I tried using the 'nv' driver on my notebook and at 1600x1050 it was noticably laggy and I couldn't put up with it. The 3D acceleration is nice for the 3D xscreensavers but I don't play a lot of games on my notebook even though they run fine, so I would have been fine with using 'nv' if it had decent performance.

The nv driver worked fine in X mode. Dropping out of X into the command line (mode 3) always caused the display to become scrambled. The display was even scrambled during shutdown while in mode 3 after X is shutdown.

The Nvidia driver worked fine in command line mode but in X the display was not right. The horizontal was ok 9/10 of the way over but scrambled the rest of the way. It was if the last 1/10 was wrapped around itself somehow. It has to be a display timing problem.

Here is an example of what you are also up against. Suppose you are running Windows XP and do the usual Windows update. After you reboot you can not get into Windows but are left with a C: prompt. The graphics and/or display driver was broken by the update! You would be normal if you were very unhappy with Microsoft.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
If the display driver was broken by the update, chances are that the box will BSOD on boot and you'll never see an interactive prompt until you boot from the CD and start a rescue operation.

That shows Linux has a long way to go before it has a chance for mainstream users. Having to perform a linux rescue after an update is more than just anoying.

That is what happens with linux if the kernel is replaced as part of the update. If you are using the accelerated driver from Nvidia. You must rebuild the driver when the kernel is replaced. Otherwise you can not get into the graphical X Windows any more.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
And if you're using a distribution maintained kernel and nvidia driver you don't have to worry about it. Even Debian has packages with the nvidia driver compiled for most of their kernels and even if one isn't available module-assistant makes compiling a new one for the current kernel simple.

That may be true but for Fedora that is not possible if you select to install a default Workstation. With that you are missing the development tools necessary to build anything. Without the development tools the Nvidia video driver installation aborts when tries to build a new driver.

 

[Nothinman]

The laptop has a 1280x800 LCD. With Fedora Core 2 I was able to get it working with a modeline entry. That fix did not work with Fedora Core 3. I have not tried Fedora 4 yet.

Needing a modeline doesn't mean the LCD interface is non-standard, it just means that X wasn't able to query the available resolutions for some reason. It's been a while, but I think I needed a modeline to get 1600x1050 out of my notebook's LCD as well.

The nv driver worked fine in X mode. Dropping out of X into the command line (mode 3) always caused the display to become scrambled. The display was even scrambled during shutdown while in mode 3 after X is shutdown.

After I saw how slow the nv driver was in X I installed the nvidia drivers so I didn't mess with the console too much, but I don't remember any corruption. You may have had the console rivafb driver running which was having problems with the nv driver, it's hard to tell.

The Nvidia driver worked fine in command line mode but in X the display was not right. The horizontal was ok 9/10 of the way over but scrambled the rest of the way. It was if the last 1/10 was wrapped around itself somehow. It has to be a display timing problem.

As I said the nvidia driver has "just worked" for me in virtually every instance I can think of, but usually a little googling is all it takes to find someone who has fought with and found a solution to your problem.

That shows Linux has a long way to go before it has a chance for mainstream users. Having to perform a linux rescue after an update is more than just anoying.

Read it again, I was talking about Windows with regards to the rescue CD. I can't remember the last time an X update has caused me issues on any of my machines and the 2 I use every day use the nvidia driver.

That may be true but for Fedora that is not possible if you select to install a default Workstation. With that you are missing the development tools necessary to build anything. Without the development tools the Nvidia video driver installation aborts when tries to build a new driver.

Then it's a Fedora problem, not a Linux problem. I believe SuSe makes the nvidia driver installable and updatable via YAST as well, don't complain about Linux just because you're using a distribution that makes things more difficult than they should be.

 

[thepingofdeath]

Linux won't ever get full migration of the computer-using community until developers do the following: make the directory hierarchy more intuitive, as simple as making concise descriptive titles that get displayed along with the directory name; deploy a windows-like installation system, double-click on an installer and you're given options as to where you want to install it, what features to install, and if and where you want icons to appear--packages are great for system componets and updates, but for applications, it's a pathetic system because it's just not intuitive enough for the average user to pick up and use right off like Windows's system is; create a gui-based method for ALL advanced and typically used system settings changes and commands--no casual is going to be able to, or have the interest to, learn command-line methods. It's a great system, just a poor execution I guess.

 

[Nothinman]

make the directory hierarchy more intuitive, as simple as making concise descriptive titles that get displayed along with the directory name

Irrelevant, most people should never see anything other than what's in their home directory unless something broken and in most of those cases they'll be calling someone who knows better anyway.

deploy a windows-like installation system, double-click on an installer and you're given options as to where you want to install it, what features to install,

Already done because nearly all filemanagers already let you double-click on packages and have them install. Where to install is irrelevant, binaries go in /usr/bin which is in the user's PATH already and .desktop files are already in most packages so they get added to any fd.o menus on the system. And what features is also pointless because packages in Linux are almost always broken up so you just pick what packages you want to get the features you need.

but for applications, it's a pathetic system because it's just not intuitive enough for the average user to pick up and use right off like Windows's system is;

The Windows system isn't intuitive at all, most Windows users can't even find files after they've downloaded them, it just seems intuitive because you've already been taught how to use it. The Linux system with a decent package manager and front-end like aptitude or synaptic is much simpler to use.

create a gui-based method for ALL advanced and typically used system settings changes and commands

Feel free to get started on that. AFAIK nearly all of the KDE options are presented in each apps options dialogs and some people complain it's too complicated. Hell I'm damn good with Linux and I can't find the option I want in KDE most of the time. Gnome took the opposite approach and kept the options to a minimum in the hopes that the defaults would be what most people want, if you want to change a setting that isn't presented in an options dialog you can run the gconf editor and change them there, it's like a registry editor only less cryptic.

no casual is going to be able to, or have the interest to, learn command-line methods. It's a great system, just a poor execution I guess.

Most casual users don't want to change the defaults anyway, a lot of them don't even realize that you can change them even on Windows. The system is great and the execution in most areas is excellent and the poor areas are getting better all the time, you and most Windows users that know enough about Windows to be dangerous don't like the system because you've got the Windows methods engrained in your mind already. If you would stop comparing the two and actually learn how to use a Linux box, chances are you would find that the Linux box is easier to manage and makes a lot more sense over all.

 

[Seeruk]

Enter the word Linux into any topic's subject ....

.... watch the evangilists descend.

Seriously - what could possibly be the reason for making this thread into yet another trying to convince the world that Linux is perfect?

It's not - for every flaw in windows, there is one in Linux.

It's not cool to be a bill gates hater once your balls have dropped.

To try and convince people that Linux is for everyone is a lie, just as it is to try and convince Windows or OSX is for everyone.

Get a freakin life!

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Gee, thanks soviet. I need a copy of Linux, and I'm stuck on dial-up; no broadband access available here. Does that make me "stupid enough to buy it" or are you just so stupid you don't realize that broadband isn't universal?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't give my location up for broadband access either.

ooo this has been dug up.

Ok you got a point. But they arent selling it because of you poor dial up users, nowhere in the descriptions does it say "excellent for dialup" "intended for narrowband users" You just happen to benefit from them selling the cd's if you even want linux. Its still mainly people that dont know its free that will go and buy it, as the main selling point seems to be "better than windows".

 

[Nothinman]

Seriously - what could possibly be the reason for making this thread into yet another trying to convince the world that Linux is perfect?

No one thinks Linux is perfect, but a lot of people seem to think that Windows is even though it has just as many, if not more, problems.

It's not cool to be a bill gates hater once your balls have dropped.

Who said anything about Bill Gates? I do hate him, but only because he's as brainwashed as the rest of the MS employees and his voice is like nails down a chalkboard.

To try and convince people that Linux is for everyone is a lie, just as it is to try and convince Windows or OSX is for everyone.

Linux or one of the BSDs has a better chance of being for everyone than anything else because they're totally open. As corporations move towards Linux it gives them all a common core to build upon, it results in lower overall costs because licensing is nil and internal development is only required for device specific apps and drivers. Look at how many wifi routers are Linux based these days. And TiVo is probably the best example of a Linux based device that everyone loves.

Get a freakin life!

I have one and a large portion of my day is spent working on Linux systems at work and at home, the one Windows machine I have at work has caused me infinitely more problems than all of my Linux boxes combined.

 

[Seeruk]

Actually there is a massive tendency in the linux fanb0y world to proclaim Linux as perfect. A good example is the one you gave of Wifi routers using linux.... well great how about getting the damn NIC's working with linux? My pre-n router is based on linux, yet no effort has been made in the 9 months its been out to create the drivers for the NIC.
Hardware support is terrible if you are an enthusiast (particularly a gaming one).

I use linux all day too, I also use Windows all day and Mac OSX to a lesser extent. I know that only 5% of my home customers are capable of ticking a couple of boxes to get Windows Update working automatically. How the f*ck would they handle adding repositories, patching, taking snapshots from CVS to fix the crap latest release of a package, writing an Xorg.conf file, and so on....

So I would argue already that 95% of the home user population Linux is absolutely not suitable for, just as I would argue that Windows was unsuitable for 95% of web servers!

Bill Gates is doing his job, he is a PR man now and nothing else. Not the guy I would pick for his job but still he does it pretty effectively for his company. Hating him and calling him 'brainwashed' would be as ridiculous as calling Torvald brainwashed lol.

Noone can argue that Linux stands a better chance of being suitable for everyone because it just isnt focused and consolidated enough to provide a coherent standard. Its FANTASTIC for building a custom solution. But for companies (especially SME's) and home users Windows is far superior in terms of setup/configuration and ease of use.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
Actually there is a massive tendency in the linux fanb0y world to proclaim Linux as perfect. A good example is the one you gave of Wifi routers using linux.... well great how about getting the damn NIC's working with linux? My pre-n router is based on linux, yet no effort has been made in the 9 months its been out to create the drivers for the NIC.
Hardware support is terrible if you are an enthusiast (particularly a gaming one).

Want pre-N support, here's what you need to do:

1. Ensure the proper developers have the proper hardware.
2. Ensure the proper developers with the proper hardware have the proper documentation about said hardware.

This is a community effort after all. 😉

One of the problems with Pre-N stuff is that it is pre. Is there a finalized standard out yet? Is everyone following it?

EDIT: OCD

 

[Nothinman]

A good example is the one you gave of Wifi routers using linux.... well great how about getting the damn NIC's working with linux? My pre-n router is based on linux, yet no effort has been made in the 9 months its been out to create the drivers for the NIC.

You can thank companies like Broadcomm for not releasing any docs or firmware, reverse engineering a device is a ton of work and most people would rather spend another $10 on a card from a good company like RaLink. And as a fallback there's ndiswrapper now which I've seen a lot of people have success with, even though I think it's a bad solution.

Hardware support is terrible if you are an enthusiast (particularly a gaming one).

Maybe I'm getting old, but buying a computer just foir gaming is a huge waste of money. And IME the main devices, i.e. video, sound and input, all work fine.

How the f*ck would they handle adding repositories, patching, taking snapshots from CVS to fix the crap latest release of a package, writing an Xorg.conf file, and so on....

Just as well as they handle updating Windows, extremely poorly. In both cases the software isn't the problem.

So I would argue already that 95% of the home user population Linux is absolutely not suitable for, just as I would argue that Windows was unsuitable for 95% of web servers!

And I would argue that Windows is unsuitable for 95% of the population, it's just that we've become used to it's problems and most people don't even realize what's going on.

Bill Gates is doing his job, he is a PR man now and nothing else. Not the guy I would pick for his job but still he does it pretty effectively for his company. Hating him and calling him 'brainwashed' would be as ridiculous as calling Torvald brainwashed lol.

I've seen Linus admit he's wrong on several occasions and he's only concerned with technical issues in the kernel, I have never seen Gates admit to a problem with his software and everytime he presents something it's the second coming. Just like every other employee of MS that I've seen, they all think their software is the one true solution.

Noone can argue that Linux stands a better chance of being suitable for everyone because it just isnt focused and consolidated enough to provide a coherent standard

Sure it is, the kernel and base libraries are extremely consolidated and provide enough framework for any device. Full blown PCs are more complicated because they're general purpose and have to do a lot more so you get more people using them with different ideas about how things should work which results in more software, but since when is choice a bad thing?

But for companies (especially SME's) and home users Windows is far superior in terms of setup/configuration and ease of use.

And it's that ease of setup that's causing all of the problems today, so many people think they understand computers when they don't. Everyone clicks through the wizards without reading anything and just hope for the best, that's no way to run a business.