Another Windows vs Linux "Gotcha"

"[i]What is relevent is the market.[/i]"
That's not relevant to that branch of the discussion. That particular bit of discussion was about how well Linux and Windows manage in supporting new technologies. Your argument is irrelevant to that. I refuted a point with a concrete example. Whether people in general are aware of that is irrelevant to its truth.

Don't buy a plasma TV unless you just have money to throw away. You get similar performance for better overall value with digital light projection, and very near the same performance for rather less money with LCD. Plasma televisions have extremely short lifespans before they begin to fail. They aren't, in my little world of limited budgets, worth the money.

In any case, I'm not out of touch with the real world -- you're just out of touch with the specific subject matter of the discussion at the point where you jumped in. We weren't discussing market value, we were discussing support for advancing technology. There's a huge difference, there.

Once again, you break the chain of context, and this time I don't remember where in the discussion this train of thought originated, or what was said most recently. I really wish you could manage to [b]keep posts connected to context[/b]!

To respond to points in this post, mostly devoid of context, however:

The 450 has 1x AGP capability. It has an ATI Rage IIc with 4MB of dedicated VRAM onboard. The 1600 has integrated video on the motherboard with 32MB of shared RAM, using an AGP chipset (not sure of the generation of AGP).

Neither has USB "2.0" capability, so that's not really at issue. Neither has SATA or PCI-Express capability, either, though the 450 has a SCSI riser card in it.

I don't remember what the specific reference to download.com was about, but I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that I never would have implied that all the stuff at download.com is preinstalled on a computer, so whatever you're trying to shovel, you should stop now.

The only defence I have is that none of my mac users know any *nix commands (i consider it a small miracle if one of them finds the terminal).

P.S. as a sudo'ed regular user I was able the root passwd.

at last count (in australia at least). I'd say Linux has thrown down a gauntlet.

... tsk tsk tsk. :)

The point that I originally tried to make (that apparently missed the mark) is that there is still a lot of hardware out there (some of it in my own machine) that is 16-18 months old, that *NONE* of the Linux flavors seem to support. Even when I contact the various support groups and manufacturers all I get is a collective "I've never seen that one before".

My system isn't anything special. It's not overclocked, it's all stock hardware, it's all industry standard at the time it was manufactured.

I'm still at the same spot that I was when you and I exchanged some other (a bit friendlier) posts a year or so ago. Right now, I have to use my older hardware to run Linux. I want to run it in a virtual machine on my newer hardware, but it just won't run. The fact that the newer hardware and the virtual machine can run *EVERY OTHER OS I'VE LOADED* points out that the deficiency is with Linux.

On my newer hardware, Linux will not even dual-boot. Same problems, same error messages. Again pointing out that it's not the virtual machine, it's Linux.

So much for the "It just works" mantra.

Why won't you tell us what VM you're using?

I would suggest you read some recent patents.

Random sampling for the last 3 years would be a good start. Look at what is actually being patented.

While you're looking find teh Amazon "OneClick" patent and the Adobe or Apple tabbed dialog patent.

Patents were designed to encourage the disclosure of new was of doing thins, so that others might use that information to do newer/better things. Without the patent, people were encouraged to obfuscate the works of machines so that they could not be easily coppied. The patent was to allow a limited time monopoly so they full disclosure of the workings would occur.

That also allowed for licensing, so I could improve what you did, and sell it, while giving you some return. However if insetead you refused to allow me to use your patent, that stifles the market and reduces innovation. Many patent today are not available for a liscense, or only available at unprofitable rate.

Then there's the problem of unrelated, independant inventions. You and I both make something with out know the other is doing it. Who get to sell them? Who ever files for the patent first. So if you've spent 10 years on something and I did it in 5, but file my application the day before you, you get nothing, and cannot even sell the product you've spent the last 10 years working on. That happens a lot now, because a working prototype is not required to file. So I can file as soon as I get the idea, while you have been trying to make it work, yet you get nothing. They current applictions are mostly ideas that will never be developed. They are just there as a way to prevent anyone else from making money on that idea.

Anyone else consider, or already has, a complete digital set-up? I mean your TV is connected to a small computer that is connected to a network media server, that is connected to your cable or satallite?

Esentially this is the thought behind those DVRs that Cable and satallite companies are dishing out. Microsoft has their Media Center Edition that does that as well. Sony Vaio is also set up that way!

Anyhow, there is a way to do this with LINUX and it's a heck of a lot cheaper, too! That would be why I would want to watch DVDs on my Computer, because it is my receiver!

In this case I favor scrapping the whole thing. In most government situations, it's the only way. When the modify something they create more problems then they solve.

So write an entierly new law, that accounts for all the desired benifits and current technology. Put in way to prevent problems of the past.

There are too many bad patents in the current system to maintain it. Like the legal system that preferes that the guilty go free than the innocent be punished, void good patents so that no bad ones are upheld.

'Cause I'm a bonehead and thought that I had already said it.

I currently use the Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 Standard Edition.

I'm afraid I don't have any experience with that virtualization software, and don't know why you'd be having trouble with it. I know that VMWare does just fine with Linux, as do Xen and QEMU (which are free).

By your argument, since you've been able to get every OS you've tried to work with MSV 2005 except Linux, there's something wrong with Linux. Every VM I've seen and heard about works fine with Linux except MSV 2005, so by your argument the problem must be with MSV 2005. I'm especially inclined to believe the fault is with MSV, considering it's a Microsoft VM, and Microsoft is not exactly well-known for its attempts to interoperate well with open source systems.

In the real world, though, you can't very well blame any piece of technology involved in your broken setup for its brokenness unless and until you know exactly what the problem is. As has been pointed out by others here, Linux works fine with hyperthreaded CPUs, so your initial wild guess for what's causing your problem is inaccurate. Perhaps you should investigate the matter, rather than simply assuming it's actually a problem with your least-favorite OS based on your instinctive desire to prove Windows is better.

Some of the Linux flavors also have problems with my video card (nVidia 6600 AGP) and my onboard SATA (don't remember the chipset and it's not in front of me).

Since I've also tried Linux in dual-boot mode and even Knoppix and one other (the name evades me at the moment) that boot from CD, and they all die on the same items.

This tells me that the problem has nothing to do with the VM, and everything to do with the OS / Hardware combination.

The Hardware is a DELL Dimension 8300 w/1GB RAM, 3GHz P4 HT running an nVidia 6600 AGP with a 120GB Maxtor Calypso on the built in SATA controller.

My diagnosis of the problems are not guesses or assumptions of my own, they come from the Linux manufacturers and the Linux support community.

Now that you're armed with this information, which distro do you recommend? [I may be frustrated, but that doesn't mean I'll stop trying!]

And when did I say Linux was my least favorite OS?

As an aside: I'll check out Xen and QEMU. If they abstract the hardware differently, that may be the ticket.

The recommendation of a distribution really needs to be based on your preferences and needs -- I can't just tell you what to use. I'm surprised you're having issues with an nVIDIA graphics adapter, though -- there's an nVIDIA driver included with the standard kernel that should cover you nicely, though it lacks full OpenGL support (for that you'd need the proprietary driver).

I've had a grand total of two computers that wouldn't handle a Linux install easily, and the entire problem for one can be blamed on the shoddy motherboard in the thing. It's bottom-rung bargain-basement hardware. The other was a brand-spankin'-new Thinkpad wherein the drive controller for the DVD/CD-RW was different from the same model of laptop from a couple months before. Everything else pretty much Just Worked over the years for a standard Linux install with any of a number of different distributions. It sounds like, whatever the problem is, you just got lucky with a particular Dell hardware configuration.

My personal favorite distribution for pretty much everything is Debian, but it's not specifically targeted at rank beginners, so you might find it frustrating at first to get past the initial learning curve. Fedora and SuSE tend to work well for initial evaluation of Linux installations in productive environments, in large part because they are among the best-supported distros with regards to proprietary commercial software.

Knoppix tends to have very good hardware support. If you're having problems with Knoppix for x86 hardware support, you could try Xandros instead, which I understand also does okay in that area (though I don't really have personal experience with it). MEPIS isn't half-bad with hardware support, either. Generally, hardware support tends to be very good with the major LiveCD distributions, because they have to be able to work on any random computer you run across.

Your claim that Windows will play DVD's out of the box is incorrect. You must install a third party player such as Cyberlink Power DVD to do so. Now I agree that many computers have this as part of the bundle when sold so many users won't know that windows can't play them but it does not change that fact that windows can't do it out of the box. If you wish to compare like for like I suggest that you examine Linspire which does have an easily installed and legally licensed DVD player. As for other distros I will agree that playing DVD's can be problamatic but as Jaqui points out elsewhere the libdvdcss is easily installed and solves the problem for no cost at all.

You learn it because if you don't you aren't going to be able to use the tool. Just like when a new piece of wordworking gear is invented, cabinet makers have to invest time and effort learning to use it. Or, they can ignore reality, and use it as an efficient new finger remover.

Technology is not (just) about making things easier. It also makes things that were impossible or impractical for most people possible and practical.

It can't make everything easy. How would you make designing rocket engines easy for example. Assuming of course that your method will enable the same advances of technology at the same pace as the hard way of learning the fundamentals and how to apply them.

It's also not a given that because someone else is able to do some particular thing with their PC, that you can or even should be able to. Not everyone is capable of doing everything in life.

I have a dual monitor setup. I often watch movies as background noise while working on the other monitor.

My 3 year old son also like to sit in my lap while I work and watch his DVDs on HIS monitor :).

I had to install the software that came with the DVD-ROM.

KaceyR:

I can tell you exactly why you can't run Linux properly in MS VS 2005. Microsoft DOES NOT support running Linux in Virtual Server 2005 (Original), but added support for certain distributions with Virtual Server 2005 R2. Also, all "Guest" OS must be 32-bit variants.

"With the original Virtual Server 2005 release, it was recommended that hyper-threading be disabled on the host computer. With Virtual Server 2005 R2 that is no longer necessary. Virtual Server 2005 R2 can run with hyper-threading enabled or disabled."

I used to like AA, but dropped out after they required the installation of punk buster. From what I could tell by reading the EULA (yes I actually read it), you had to give punk buster root to your box in order to play the game. I'm sure if the government wanted what is on my computer they could find a way to get it, but I wasn't going to invite them in.

Do you still have to run punk buster to play?

It's actually very rare for an application to require root access on Linux, and even in the rare cases where they do you can usually give it a fake root access environment so it's happy but can't actually screw up your system. Once in a while, you run across something commercial/proprietary for which that doesn't really work, and you're left with either compromising system security or not using it.

EDIT: . . . and why would anyone flame you for that?

I know Linux does a better job in this department.

I was referring to Windows programs and why some manufacturers need admin access when they really don't.

I call it lazy programming. Yes, there are cases, where because of Windows, admin access is necessary. But the vast majority of the cases are programmers choice.

the ones that are stuck using admin access or the microsoft programmers that can't get a proper multi user security model working?

I'll blame the ms programmers.

How about the "lazy" Linux programmers who can't seem to make an OS that is as easy to learn and use as Windows?

I already know what you are going to say.

But here are the facts. I've been in IT for 7+ years now and I've found over the last several months that Linux is extremely difficult to learn and use by comparison.

The Linux community seems to take great pride in their OS and its abilities yet still can't seem to crack the mainstream.

I agree with most everything you say. However, no OS will ever challenge MS until they reach the ease of use, compatibiltiy, etc that MS has.

Yes, they take a backseat when it comes to security, reliablity, etc but I learned more and was able to do more with Windows after one month than I have been able to accomplish with Linux in the same time period and with Windows, I had zero experience. With Linux, I have the benefit of 7+ years of experience and knowledge that helps somewhat.

The learning curve is too steep.

windows ease of use is at the cost of stability and security.

windows and compatability? when no 2 versions of windows are compatable that is a bit of a joke.
[ MS does not even try for backwards compatability, most linux programmers do try.[ they might not always succeed, but they do try ] ]

We already covered the hardware driver issue being the manufacturers issue, not the os.

Two different versions of Windows not compatible?

What planet do you live on? At home, I'm running Server 2003, XP Pro, XP Home, NT, and Win 98. I don't seem to have any compatibility problems.

All networked together, all can run Office 2000, all run most any program I have.

Where is this compatibility problem you are speaking of?

I see compatibility problems with Linux. Some programs run on some distros but not all distros...like my America's Army game.

At work, we run Server 2003, Server 2000, Win 2000 and XP Pro. No problems here either.

rickk:

1. You talk about "ease of use". I understand that what you actually mean is accessibility to the uninitiated, so I'll talk about that. If you want it to be as initially accessible as Windows, you need to do the same thing you do with Windows as a brand spankin' new user: get a computer with a full GUI install already in place. Unless and until you do that, you don't really have any room to talk about how much "easier" Windows is.

2. Windows is [b]not[/b] very compatible between versions. Often, the same software doesn't work from one OS version to the next. Often, the same configuration process does not work from one OS version to the next. While we're at it, every new Windows release has a network "master" priority higher than all previous versions, commonly enforcing network restructuring to incorporate new Windows OSes even when you don't want to have to do that. The NTFS filesystem changes in incompatible ways from one OS version to the next, and you can't just decide to format a partition with a previous NTFS version. CIFS changes in subtly incompatible ways from one OS version to the next. Need I continue?

1) I did have a fully installed GUI of Mandriva Linux. As a matter of fact, the install process was smooth as a whistle and I was indeed very impressed.

But I couldn't figure out how to install a Citrix client, America's Army, or ever figure out how to use the Wine or Cedega apps.

I don't or ever did have a problem installing similar apps in Windows. I just double click on the setup.exe and follow the prompts.

2) Yes, there are subtle difference between versions. However, stop talking about "theory" and start talking about reality. None of those examples you gave affect my ability to use Win 98 thru Win XP including server versions in the real world.

Both at work and at home, I have Win 98 thru Win XP and Win Server NT/2000/2003 and don't experience these issues you are talking about.

They do exist but there are workarounds and solutions that are workable.

As a matter of fact, I'm on a P400 laptop right now with Win 98 on it and it flat out performs great.

It's Win 98, not scaled down, with all the bells and whistles, the most recent Citrix client, RDC, joined to my domain, Office 2000, firewall, AV, anti-everything, newest version of IE, a few fairly recent games, and some great newer utilities.

No problems here. No compatibility issues. Not sure what you're talking about. It's on-line thru my DSL which is quite fast, grant it it does have 192MB of RAM that helps alot, but I'm not concerned with compatibility of security and performs like a champ for everyday use.

Wrong diagnosis for a very well known problem.

This has nothing to do with Linux, and everything to do with the fact that there are no licensed, legally unencumbered DVD players available for Linux. You can thank Hollywood and shortsighted "the world will always be Windows-only" developers with DVD-decoder licenses for this.

No Linux distribution vendor would therefore run the legal gauntlet of distributing DVD player software with their distros. Just like Microsoft would be out of its head to include a bittorrent or p2p client with Windows.

But that does not mean that you cannot have a DVD viewer app for Linux, or a bittorrent or p2p client for Windows - you just have to download and install one.

Every modern Linux distribution has an installer that will download a program and all dependencies for you. On Fedora, you run "yum install mplayer", or "yum install xine" or "yum install videolan-client" or "yum install ogle", and that's it. On debian, replace "yum" with "apt-get", on gentoo use "emerge", on Mandriva use "urpmi", etc.

Run your freshly installed app, tell it to play your DVD, hit the "F" key to go full-screen, break out the popcorn, and enjoy.

If you want a bittorrent or p2p client for Windows, make sure to track down the application and a download site, download the installer, click on it, allow it to install itself (and any accompanying spyware, virus, trojan, etc.), and enjoy.

Oh, and just FYI - Windows XP doesnt come with a DVD player, either. You have to install a thirdparty application, or tell media player to install new codecs (which of course enforce huge amount of DRM on you), but all that is another story....

You paid for the DVD software when you purchased Windows and all of the AOL, Compuserve, Sonic, etc, icons. They help lower the cost of the OS and also pay for the DVD-playing rights.

Linux doesn't have (or want) those companies to put on junky apps. There are commercial DVD players for Linux, including Linspire and the new CyberDVD suite, but the average distro doesn't come with that capability.

So, you are looking to compare:
a $300 software dvd player with a buggy Macro$haft OS attached
-VS-
a stable free OS without legal rights to play DVDs.

Yeah, that comparison makes sense to me.

Geeks are trolls, we live in a world of our own, while the "humans" run around in the daylight dreaming of a Utopia where all wants, needs and desires are just a "mouse click away".

Geeks, techies or whatever you desire to be called, we are the builders. we do magic on these things called computers. But the "home user" pays the bills. If not for the "un-enlightened" we would still be using dumb terminals attached to mainframes. The "home user" is what drives us to create, to re-invent, if you don't believe that is true, remember WHY Linux was created.

I'd say you have ruff clients there Jaqui, they must keep you busy :-)

You have a laptop, and don't want to carry a portable DVD player with you as well when you travel.

FOr the record, I have also struggled to get a DVD to work properly on Linux. Microsoft had nothing to do with that.

You have a laptop, and don't want to carry a portable DVD player with you as well when you travel.

FOr the record, I have also struggled to get a DVD to work properly on Linux. Microsoft had nothing to do with that.

Your VCR does not have a DVD player ? I have 2 of them both have a DVD player and a VCR tape I can record several programs at the same time
also I dump the recorded programs off to my computer and remove commercials and make them into a DVD for me. .

You must be putting the boot in the wrong spot or else it would work . . It asks you where to put the boot sector at and it should be first place ! I have installed Linux on an old 233 meghertz computer with PC133 memory and it worked ! So your doing something wrong in telling it where to boot from
Linux boots different from windows you get to see all the stuff Linux boots with and its a LONG list of stuff . .

I have three laptops, two from Dell and one from IBM. In all three cases, the required codecs were supplied with the OEM software. You are right that they are third party, but they were free. I have both Cyberlink and WINDVD, but I can also watch the movies from Windows Media Player.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the resolution of most monitors greatly exceeds that of a TV screen.

Also bear in mind you are sitting 12 " away from a monitor, and often 24 feet away from a monster 58 " TV.

I have found that most things in life that are worth having require at least SOME effort on ones part to achieve. Then there are those that reject all things that do require an effort to acheive !.

I have had good luck with Myth, but getting my remotes to work with Linux is a different story.

"Why do we have to make Linux more stupid, why don't we work on making the people smarter?"

Because we *know* we can dumb Linux down. No guarantees you'll ever make users smarter.

I think Linux boxes will always be like the hot rods of the '50s and '60s: if you're willing to be your own mechanic, you can index the plugs, change the carb and exhaust manifolds and get a much faster car. Unfortunately, your aftermarket intake manifold won't have a space for the mounting bracket for your A/C compressor, so you'll have to do without that and (since they share a belt) your power steering too. Sure, it's worth it to have the fastest machine on the street, but most drivers won't want to put up with the loss of convenience.

Americas Army in Mandriva works great here, now on version 2008.0 and for several versions and years before!
What is the problem you have encountered?