Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Someone already mentioned, except OsmocomBB, all baseband software are proprietary. And certainly, carriers can spy you in arbitrary ways no matter how free your phone is.
Therefore, I failed to see the reasons why people is bothered when the OpenGL drivers on their phones are not wholly FOSS.
FSF raising funds for the Replicant project
Posted Jul 26, 2013 15:33 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Jul 26, 2013 16:56 UTC (Fri) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Posted Jul 27, 2013 5:26 UTC (Sat) by swetland (subscriber, #63414)
High integration tends to allow for smaller, lower cost, lower power solutions, so it is often favored by OEMs, but implementation does vary and you can find devices out there that still use discrete baseband designs.
Posted Jul 27, 2013 6:31 UTC (Sat) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
What I infer from your information is that despite the fun of baseband replacing, it cannot have a noticeable social effect as some, if not many, devices' baseband are not replaceable in the first place.
The reason I focus on social effect is that if you are one out of 100 people using LibreOffice, you are just a distractor. Some imaginary social benefits of free software adoption are just irrelevant in this case.
Posted Jul 26, 2013 15:38 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
It has bothered me and others in practice when we have had to put up with binary GPU drivers for our workstations, where someone has to go scurrying off to Nvidia's Web site to get something that might work, and then go through an installation ceremony that would be avoided if only Nvidia's stuff were a proper part of the system. So if you fail to see practical inconvenience as anything to be bothered about, I'm sure you have a long and happy career ahead of you in front-line support. Just remember that the inconvenienced users aren't enjoying it as much as you might be.
Posted Jul 26, 2013 16:46 UTC (Fri) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Cool, if a kernel constantly breaks its ABI, it should be a good one (for example Linux).
Well, even if I share this vision of kernel and acknowledge your practical concern, it is still unrelated to the free software dogma that FSF always try to propaganda.
PC is a different story, are there fund raisings for Nouveau and/or Bumblebee project?
Posted Jul 26, 2013 23:18 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
And as for Nouveau, I thought that there was a fundraising campaign for it, or perhaps for other GPU-related projects.
Posted Jul 27, 2013 3:27 UTC (Sat) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
The reason is simple; parasite on other people's ecosystem isn't going to work well on a large scale. A few dissenters cannot make every hardware of much much larger ecosystem work nicely. For example, Nouveau just have serious regression on one of my old laptop (pre-install OS was Vista). I just don't have enough energy to debug and report this issue currently. Not to mention that Nouveau still have many missing features. Another example is that some OpenWrt hacker also brick their wireless routers occasionally.
( Some Linux users get excited whenever drivers get improvements. I get baffled instead, is a working full-feature driver such a luxury that we need at least a few years to see? )
Replicant is nothing wrong of its own. But I think FSF should be more selective and should try to endorse more original projects only. Parasite-based project will hit a wall before it has noticeable social effect outside FOSS-chamber.
Posted Jul 27, 2013 5:30 UTC (Sat) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640)
But somehow you have plenty of energy to spread negativity and argue with people in the internets.
I don't know about you, but I would feel having achieved something after debugging reporting and bug in a free software project, which is not the feeling one gets from arguing...
Posted Jul 27, 2013 6:23 UTC (Sat) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Search the bugs I reported or participated before and check the responses. Few of them is hardware related, though.
Commenting on LWN is much less pressured ( The pressure of debugging comes from the fact that I have to keep the system in a bug reproducible state for quite some time. For example, to keep Nouveau bug reproducible, I have to live with a broken system. ) . And I have greater freedom to express negative prospective. Some project just sucks, to a extent that I believe sane people shouldn't waste their time there, but they always considered themselves winners because they are doing FOSS.
People say PC, whose official OS is Windows (find a non-niche PC vendor doesn't say they recommend Windows), is losing relevance. But the same applies for many traditional FOSS projects. That's why I find free software dogma more and more banal these days. I comment on LWN, is LWN website (not including content) free software? Which decision is more important, using Replicant or using FOSS Android App only? How many people here managed to use FOSS Android App only?
Posted Jul 27, 2013 13:43 UTC (Sat) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
People say PC, whose official OS is Windows
And there you have it! Who says that the "official OS" of the PC is Windows? You accept the tying of a software product to a hardware platform as if it were the most natural thing in the world when it is, in fact, an artificial arrangement brought about by anticompetitive meddling.
Are you even aware that before Microsoft got into trouble for bundling things like media players and Web browsers, the company was demanding OS licensing payments for every Intel processor sold regardless of whether the purchaser would be running their software?
Only if you challenge your assumptions about what is natural and normal will you see that you have been deceived. For those of us who have been around long enough to know that things weren't always this way, it is easier to see the deception, but maybe for those whose first computing experience was Windows on Intel it is more difficult to roll back the prejudices established from the very beginning of their computing experiences. Maybe you are part of this latter group.
Choice and competition are essential things, both in the marketplace and in what people decide to do with their own time and resources. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would argue for a corporate-imposed monoculture and spend so much time telling people not to bother supporting other initiatives. And the real "parasites" here are those companies that have inserted themselves into a position of guaranteed revenue, regardless of whether anyone wanted to choose those companies' products in the first place.
Perhaps you should try and understand the history of the industry before telling people who clearly do understand it what they should and shouldn't be doing.
Posted Jul 28, 2013 3:38 UTC (Sun) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Is there anything wrong with that? Why don't you buy fancy m68k, PowerPC, Zilog, whatever instead?
All you write sounds like losers' grumble.
Posted Jul 28, 2013 14:28 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
Excuse me? Is there anything wrong with one company demanding payment when another company delivers a product? Yes there is: educate yourself about competition law before you accuse others of being "parasites" and "losers".
Intel has been fortunate that, for example, AMD did not manage to deliver enough volume around ten years or so ago when they had the edge over Intel, but then again Intel managed to keep AMD's products away from the market:
If things like facts and established codes of ethics can't persuade you that we need things like regulators and alternatives, then I can't see you move beyond name-calling, sadly.
Posted Jul 28, 2013 17:42 UTC (Sun) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Well, maybe the particular practice you mentioned did violated some law in some country, who knows. I hope you better provide full source of evidence. There are dozens if not hundreds of microprocessor vendors out there. Why cannot one software company out of countless many have a deal with a microprocessor company? Do you presume that, IBM-PC, a particular configuration of Intel microprocessor and friends the only way of doing personal computing? Certainly it is not the case today. At the end of day, if Microsoft Tax is that high, why tax payers do not embrace an alternative? I think Microsoft splitting makes perfect sense, but we didn't get there.
Anyway, the practice is not happening and I doubt it ever happened, despite conceived.
As I mentioned, Intel is also a company tried to extinguish competition by immoral and potentially illegal method. I can also say that Google utilize their de facto monopoly in web search to promote their Web browser and more. There are other Google "evil" doings. The only problem with Microsoft seems to be that fact their immoral actions were too successful; gains many haters.
Many people have problems with Windows's monopoly. But I doubt whether there are any real demands for non-Windows system outside FOSS and/or Unix chamber. Why all major PC vendors being loyal Microsoft Tax payer and Windows promoters? Why component vendors (GPU, Printers, Gaming mice, etc.) always give 100% working Windows driver without giving a shit to anything else (except OSX sometimes) ? Why pre-installed Linux system often being replaced by pirated Windows system right way? Why it is still very hard to buy a Unix friendly IBM-PC? Even guru like Lennart Poettering asked on G+ about which model to buy (from Samsung, IIRC). If there is really a noticeable demand, why there is no supply? Remember, The hypes about Linux started as early as 2000 and virtually every year is the year of Linux desktop.
On the other hand, the products really challenged the relevance of Windows, are those redefined the way of using personal computing, e.g., iPhone, and created new demand. That's the key difference between innovative product and parasitic product. Parasitic product can gain a small market share, e.g., 1%, and that's it. Using this criteria, Ubuntu Edge (not contributed a cent yet) is on right track and Replicant is not.
I'd also remind you again that you are paying Microsoft Tax in terms of patent by buying Android devices. You are free to handicap your devices with Replicant. But I really doubt how can explain to non-technical what the h--l is Replicant.
Posted Jul 29, 2013 13:34 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
Anyway, the practice is not happening and I doubt it ever happened, despite conceived.
This is history denial as I have pointed out in another response.
Posted Jul 28, 2013 12:15 UTC (Sun) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Shouldn't you boycott Intel products because you are a choice advocate?
Posted Jul 28, 2013 18:55 UTC (Sun) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
But a fact is that, most computer vendors, most component vendors, most ISVs, most users (pirate or not) all "vote" for Windows despite the fact Microsoft is a presumptive "evil" company.
Many of Microsoft very immoral practices have been things of past. I really feel that, Apple is actually the most "close-minded" company now. For example, watching WWDC requires QuickTime while Build Windows offers WebM video.
I don't like Microsoft and want diversity also. But I don't think contribute to PC Linux specific stuff can ultimately have noticeable impact. (Contribution can be fun and/or painful, though.) The evidence is obvious, where is the Linux friendly PC supply after more than one decade of advocate? (I know there is some niche vendors.) If I have spare money, I'd "vote" for Ubuntu Edge, Chromebook or MacBook. These devices may also involve Microsoft Tax somehow but at least they are demand-creating products that can potentially challenge Windows's monopoly.
Posted Jul 29, 2013 1:21 UTC (Mon) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Jul 29, 2013 5:38 UTC (Mon) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Posted Jul 29, 2013 17:51 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
> By buying a commodity Android phone, you are already funding various companies produce non-free software, paying patent tax to Microsoft, etc.
But how does that mean the *FSF* the parasite, and not Microsoft?
If Replicant doesn't go beyond a niche, I'd expect the developers are fine with that (though they may be disappointed) since freedom is their ultimate goal.
Posted Aug 1, 2013 15:35 UTC (Thu) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Replicant, on the other hand, try to compete with the origin firmwares come with smart phones. The origin firmwares have 100% market share when the phones are traded. All modified firmwares are therefore parasites. Such parasites can bring fun to a certain group of people, i.e., geeks. However, it won't make free software in FSF sense the mainstream by all means.
Regarding the patent "tax" of MSFT, I'm not trying to say that MSFT is doing any good. And I have serious problems with the current state of exFAT. The point is, the real economic effect of buying an Android phone and flash Replicant maybe totally unrelated to the advance of free software. I don't know good alternative phones, though, I'm still using N9.
BTW, MSFT released Office Mobile for Android the other day: http://blogs.office.com/b/office365tech/archive/2013/07/3...
Maybe this is another example shows why the real "battle" is not about whether the OpenGL drivers of the Android phones are FOSS or not.
From what I've observed, the ODF camp doesn't gain notable supporters outside AOO and LibO. Sharing ODF files among big-three-OS is not smooth actually due to font issues. The ODF camp is certainly lag in mobile world and probably fall behind in Web world also.
Posted Aug 1, 2013 16:03 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
So if Microsoft forced all OEM manufacturers to only sell Windows (which isn't beyond them (see BeOS' battle to get shipped on PC's)), Linux now becomes a parasite? Also, all Apple hardware sells with OS X or iOS. Is any distribution which runs on it a parasite as well?
Really, I think you're missing the point. As said elsewhere, people don't buy a phone for its firmware or drivers and users typically don't care about whether they're replaceable or not. However, the FSF *does* care and considers it important enough to work on. Whether they get users of their project directly isn't the end goal; getting more phones to use more free firmware *is* and if they don't do the work, who else has made any indication that they're willing?
> Maybe this is another example shows why the real "battle" is not about whether the OpenGL drivers of the Android phones are FOSS or not.
So because it's not the most important "battle", we should drop everything related to it? That's a great plan there, General.
Posted Aug 1, 2013 16:34 UTC (Thu) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
No one cares about "force". Everyone cares about profit. Unless you can otherwise show MSFT used some illicit measures to actively hinder Linux (recent 5 years, please) adoption. I rather find the reason is that almost no home users really want to use Linux. What I've observed is people that actively replace pre-installed Linux with pirated pirated Windows after PC purchase.
The Linux on IBM-PC is considered parasite because I cannot find a single IBM-PC model from major vendors that is primarily designed with Linux in mind. Can you find one? Chromebook doesn't count here.
By the way, I've heard that people who bought IBM-PC model with Linux pre-installed get very poor support at end of day. That's no surprise to me as I mentioned no one is serious about Linux prodigies at all.
> Also, all Apple hardware sells with OS X or iOS. Is any distribution which runs on it a parasite as well?
> Whether they get users of their project directly isn't the end goal; getting more phones to use more free firmware *is* and if they don't do the work, who else has made any indication that they're willing?
If end user is not a priority of FOSS project in general, I would seriously whether FOSS is doing any good to the society and whether it is worth to contribute a minute and/or a penny.
If the endorsement of Replicant is just an "indication" that FSF cares about smart phones. Well, any one outside of FOSS-chamber cares? Even if the general public might look dumb from time to time, they are indeed wise in the sense that they value originality and innovation, rather than illusionary freedom.
> So because it's not the most important "battle", we should drop everything related to it?
I was not trying to infer that. But which thing is more important may be something needs some consideration when one wants to donate money but doesn't have infinite budget.
Posted Aug 1, 2013 20:08 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
WTF? Why are you here then? By this logic, we should all be grateful for the crap that companies do give us since any use of it other than the designed and intended purposes is a bastardization of their hard work, good nature, and kindness at letting us even *know* of their products. I call bullshit.
> If end user is not a priority of FOSS project in general, I would seriously whether FOSS is doing any good to the society and whether it is worth to contribute a minute and/or a penny.
I didn't say it's not a priority, it's just not the end goal.
> I was not trying to infer that. But which thing is more important may be something needs some consideration when one wants to donate money but doesn't have infinite budget.
Sure, that's the same with anything that requires money. Do you have suggestions for where else for people with extra money looking to make free software/culture/hardware better to contribute which would have a more "useful" impact?
Posted Aug 1, 2013 16:41 UTC (Thu) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
People buy phones for a good combination of hardware and software. Very few phone vendors use stock Android, they generally customize Android to fit their vision. The additional components in the customizations are generally proprietary, sorry free software zealot.
Posted Aug 1, 2013 19:50 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
That's basically what I said; the firmware is the least of their worries. Who asks "but are they Qualcomm drivers?" when buying a phone? The stuff in the middle is the stuff which users care about least.
> Very few phone vendors use stock Android, they generally customize Android to fit their vision. The additional components in the customizations are generally proprietary <snip>.
What's the point here? Yes, people buy non-free software; that's nothing new.
Posted Aug 2, 2013 5:20 UTC (Fri) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
But you know Samsung S Pen? HTC Sense? MIUI? The list can continue.
Posted Jul 29, 2013 6:08 UTC (Mon) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Yes, these are problems because the couple between Windows and IE, for example, is too tight.
On the surface level, it's a different story, though.
What is purported more "moral" competitor, a typical Linux distribution, doing? Integrating even more stuff, a full functional productivity suite, a full functional text editor, a full functional archive manager, etc.
Another detail is that Windows allows easy show/hide access of certain programs as shown in the following link: http://www.7tutorials.com/how-set-program-access-and-comp...
I seriously don't how to easily hide the access of Firefox, for example, on Fedora/GNOME Shell system. I know I can edit a .desktop file.
Posted Jul 29, 2013 13:33 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
Microsoft got into trouble for bundling things like media players and Web browsers
You cut the "before" and the actual point I was making, to which you responded with flat-out denial despite the fact that it is documented in the historical record. I dug up a reference from 1994 ("Deal clears deck for Novell DOS 7.0", Personal Computer World, October 1994), but you can find a summary of the investigation here. The PCW article says (amongst other things)...
Microsoft agreed to stop: * charging royalties on a 'per processor' basis. In effect, this meant PC vendors paid Microsoft a fee even on PCs not using MSDOS, thus putting an extra premium on sales of DOS 7.0, NetWare, or OS/2.
As far as media player and browser bundling is concerned, I was merely using those things as a point of reference. In fact, the EU should have forced vendors to unbundle the Windows product completely and given everyone the choice of which OS they want to run. Once upon a time you could expect major vendors to offer a choice or not even ship an OS at all, but I expect you'll deny that now because you never saw it personally.
I tolerate curiosity and even ignorance, but I draw the line at the denial of history.
Posted Jul 29, 2013 14:17 UTC (Mon) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Yes, there is naked PC, there is PC pre-install FreeDOS, i.e., effectively naked, etc.
Can you find a single PC model from any of major PC vendors that doesn't have fully working Windows drivers but have fully working drivers on other OS?
Can you find a single piece of PC component or peripheral that doesn't have fully working Windows drivers but have fully working drivers on other OS?
Why only one OS, Windows, is subjected to browser ballot and media player removal in EU? Isn't this unfair?
Any EU country has non-negligible usage share of non-Windows, non-OSX OS?
Any noticeable component vendors give serious shit to non-Windows, non-OSX OS?
Any noticeable ISVs give more shit to non-Windows, non-OSX OS than Windows and/or OSXcd, except special things like CrossOver and Fluendo?
Posted Jul 29, 2013 15:47 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Why only one OS, Windows, is subjected to browser ballot and media player removal in EU? Isn't this unfair?
No, it isn't unfair (at least, it's not unfair in a way harmful to Microsoft).
As I understand it, Microsoft was found to have illegally abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market in pursuit of a monopoly in the web browser market; the "browser choice" system (i.e. compelling them to "play nice" in the web browser market by actively making Windows users aware of competitors to IE) is thus a reasonable remedy to require from Microsoft.
Posted Jul 29, 2013 16:06 UTC (Mon) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
I agree that Microsoft's IE bundling gives IE an unfair advantage on Windows. But shouldn't Ubuntu users be aware of Firefox competitors? Shouldn't OSX users be aware of Safari competitors?
Well, maybe someone believe that the monopoly player must help its competitors. Maybe there is even some law enforce that. But Windows's situation by itself is not actually worse than Ubuntu or OSX.
Posted Jul 29, 2013 16:41 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Jul 31, 2013 15:03 UTC (Wed) by Del- (guest, #72641)
Posted Aug 1, 2013 15:05 UTC (Thu) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
I've been using Linux desktop, not exclusively, starting from the days before the launch of Ubuntu.
Have you long forgotten the joy of serious 3D gaming? If you don't have problems working with handicapped GPU drivers for a decade, I have. Ask a Steam gamer whether open source GPU drivers are "perfect".
The Linux kernel is meta-project serving people with different interests; not parasitic. The interests could range from smart phones to supercomputing, Yes. But, as I mentioned, on the land of IBM-PC, no major vendors in the ecosystem is serious about Linux support. Linux distributions built for IBM-PC are therefore parasites.
If you think Linux works perfectly on your IBM-PC machines, fine. I'd ask two things.
1. How can you verify that your machine is fully hardware enabled. For example, assume that you get a laptop which has no working WiFi, how can tell these three cases: there is no WiFi hardware at all, the WiFi hardware has some unfixable problem, the driver installation is wrong.
( The performance of b43 driver are quite random among my laptops. I switched to wl driver on some of them. )
2. Can you help many people out there find their Linux installation produces more heat, keep cooling fan turned on, etc. on their laptops. I've seen some proposed methods. But I've found none of them universal and there doesn't seem to have a simple way of "resetting".
Posted Aug 1, 2013 15:28 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Windows does not have such problems? We have mainly Dells and HPs, and we have those (and other) bugs to deal with all the time.
Posted Aug 1, 2013 15:48 UTC (Thu) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
For 1 and 2, i don't have enough samples to argue Windows is perfect, but it is certainly much better. Maybe some prodigy prefers lspci to Device Manager, maybe.
Let me ask some more questions. When a stupid driver choke your machine, how can you *reliably* enter a safe mode when using Linux? How to know which driver is the culprit? How to disable the culprit driver then?
Also, consider why you are doing Windows support even if you might be a Linux fan. What's the economic reasons behind it?
Posted Aug 1, 2013 18:17 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
I couldn't parse your triple negatives properly... you meant "hummassa is biased therefore his story is not interesting" or "hummassa is unbiased therefore his story could be interesting?"
> For 1 and 2, i don't have enough samples to argue Windows is perfect, but it is certainly much better.
Not in my experience. It's marginally better for *most* hardware, certainly better for *some* hardware, and utmostly worse for *many* machines.
> Maybe some prodigy prefers lspci to Device Manager, maybe.
That is exactly the problem: lspci works. Always. Device Manager, when you have a borked driver, eh, you are not guaranteed to get there, better re-image the machine. User, kiss your data good-bye.
> When a stupid driver choke your machine, how can you *reliably* enter a safe mode when using Linux?
Usually there is a recovery option in the Grub menu. If there isn't, there are incantations to get there (F8 during an exact two-second window is an incantation, too, you know?)
The probability of that working is higher than the probability of F8-induced coma-wake-up working on linux.
> How to know which driver is the culprit?
Simple: read /var/log/dmesg*, modprobe the last used drivers in order, wait for the panic :D
> How to disable the culprit driver then?
> Also, consider why you are doing Windows support even if you might be a Linux fan. What's the economic reasons behind it?
Many, many reasons, in a vicious circle:
1. Dell/HP &c bundle license cost in computer cost;
2. Our systems developing departments have 12 years of software developed for Windows with Delphi;
3. Windows developers are cheaper/easier to find, reinforcing (2).
4. There wasn't a viable Windows alternative when first Windows was installed here, circa 96;
5. other, similar reasons.
Our user's machines are Windows, but all the servers infrastructure are Linux.
Posted Aug 2, 2013 6:05 UTC (Fri) by maxiaojun (subscriber, #91482)
Have you supported Linux desktop also? In what scale?
Since you seems to be quite experienced with driver issues, Cool. Still have some questions.
From my experience, the initial setup of Windows can be erratic. But once a working setup is there, it's very unlikely to have driver issues again. Do you think so? In what situation can you get a setup with driver issues from a non-savvy user?
For Linux, well, despite the lack of formal support (I know servers have formal support, but desktops and laptops don't), kernel and/or Xorg upgrade can have random effects. I guess it is pretty safe stay with RHEL/CentOS, though desktop application installation can be quite hard there. But if it is Arch, even Ubuntu, things can be "fun".
In fact, some pirated distribution of Windows (the most famous one may be Tomato Garden) get automatic driver installation working at least 99% of times many years ago. People seldom bother with driver issues afterwards. So it is a bit surprised to me that you seems to suffering from it still. Even if genuine Windows may require manual driver installation, Dell/HP should have listed nicely working drivers for models on their website.
For the reasons 1-5 you mentioned. I guess developer experience is a key factor. From a surface level, you may ask your fellows about their opinions on Lazarus. I look forward to hearing your answer.
Posted Aug 2, 2013 14:45 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
You are 100% right.
> Have you supported Linux desktop also? In what scale?
Yes, but, yes, in much smaller scale (1% = 30 desktops, largely of the same hardware types as the Windows desktops), but with some exclusivity (I am part of a team of 30 people that gives suppport to the Windows desktops, but I am the sole responsible for the support to the Linux desktops, and the Mac support team is me plus one colleague).
> Since you seems to be quite experienced with driver issues, Cool. Still have some questions.
> From my experience, the initial setup of Windows can be erratic. But once a working setup is there, it's very unlikely to have driver issues again. Do you think so? In what situation can you get a setup with driver issues from a non-savvy user?
It is my experience that, in an enterprise, non-savvy users do not install operating systems. We do that in the lab, for the new batch of computers, get it right, and clone the others.
> For Linux, well, despite the lack of formal support (I know servers have formal support, but desktops and laptops don't), kernel and/or Xorg upgrade can have random effects. I guess it is pretty safe stay with RHEL/CentOS, though desktop application installation can be quite hard there. But if it is Arch, even Ubuntu, things can be "fun".
You don't upgrade critical Windows major versions without review (hell, we don't even let users' machines install the Windows shutdown-time hotfixes without reviewing them). If you keep the same procedure for Linux, you'll be safe too.
> In fact, some pirated distribution of Windows (the most famous one may be Tomato Garden) get automatic driver installation working at least 99% of times many years ago. People seldom bother with driver issues afterwards. So it is a bit surprised to me that you seems to suffering from it still.
I believe you (seriously). More ahead.
> Even if genuine Windows may require manual driver installation, Dell/HP should have listed nicely working drivers for models on their website.
Dell and HP are actually the culprits, driver-wise speaking. They change their models' chipsets mid-batch and their drivers are not always perfectly aligned. These are the source of many of our headaches. Sometimes some other hardware's drivers (I'm looking at you, Lexmark) causes evil drivers interactions, too.
> For the reasons 1-5 you mentioned. I guess developer experience is a key factor.
Yes, it is. Availability, too. (more ahead, again :D)
> From a surface level, you may ask your fellows about their opinions on Lazarus. I look forward to hearing your answer.
I use Lazarus here, the initial fellow-developer reaction is "that's Delphi, isn't it?" :D Now, seriously, we don't migrate everyone to Lazarus because my city has a score of Delphi consultants that we can contract if something goes wrong or if we have a spike on development needs...
That and politics. Recently, thanks to some database-driver problems, we had to migrate the database-middleware-layer away from BDE. To Zeos, you ask? No, to "pay-for-upgrades, pay-for-every-bug-correction" UniDAC. Go figure.
Posted Aug 3, 2013 6:29 UTC (Sat) by Del- (guest, #72641)
Since then I have been through a number of workstations from IBM and HP. The only software related instabilities we have had has to my recollection always been related to the nvidia driver, the only closed source component on these machines.
The next linux kernel comes with full power management for ati cards in the open source driver. Head over to phoronix and you will see that it is in good shape. Intel has had it for some time, nouveau is working on it. Laptops running hot from open gpu drivers is soon history.
Wireless is another sucsess story. Broadcom is the only vendor left fucking up, and it hurts them big-time. The are totally left out of the Android market, while Atheros is doing great. Even Broadcom has caved in these days, have a look at the brcmsmac driver. Still not at the level of Atheros and Intel, but it may get there.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds