Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1. #21  
    You haven't experienced a support nightmate until you've tried to support varied Windows clients.
    Oh...I HAVE! That's my argument. However, perhaps my argument is faulty. I am assuming that there are more random configurations of Linux than there are of Windows, therefore, it would take more work to support the linux version of the application.

    Now, if, in fact, the various distributions of Linux are more actually more alike than the various releases of Windows, then I'd agree with you that it would probably be easier to support a linux app in terms of installation scenarios.

    However, when I take a look at all of the companies releasing distributions and all of the various GUI's available and all of the ways that these things can be installed, I tend to believe that there truly are more variations of linux installations than of Window's installations.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by homer
    Oh...I HAVE! That's my argument. However, perhaps my argument is faulty. I am assuming that there are more random configurations of Linux than there are of Windows, therefore, it would take more work to support the linux version of the application. [...]
    *shrug* IME, the various versions of Linux I've tried have had more in common than the various versions of Windows. That's anecdotal, though.
    [...] However, when I take a look at all of the companies releasing distributions and all of the various GUI's available and all of the ways that these things can be installed, I tend to believe that there truly are more variations of linux installations than of Window's installations.
    Perhaps if Linux were installed on the same scale, there might be, but in today's world, there are _far_ more potential options for Windows machines, down to there even being Windows 3.x installations out there in real world use.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Perhaps if Linux were installed on the same scale, there might be, but in today's world, there are _far_ more potential options for Windows machines, down to there even being Windows 3.x installations out there in real world use.
    The last I knew, there were still systems with 1.X Linux kernels out there. There are still a lot of Linux systems out there that are running 2.2 kernels, which is ancient in terms of Linux evolution, since large sections of the kernel were rewritten for 2.4.

    Windows offers basically a single package system for the installation of files, not counting those companies that decide to write their own. As of my last count, there were at least 3 different packaging systems for Linux (Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware), each which use their own methods and databases for maintaining packaging harmony. Though each can be used on a single system, none are compatible with the others. Yes, there is software available to access all three from a single set of utilities, but that's another package to install, which means you already need one of the other packaging systems available.

    Combine this with the fact that there are now at least 6 distros, each of which uses one of the above packaging systems, put their files in different locations, and use their own utilities to configure the system (which do occasionally work), and the nightmare just begins to unfold.

    This is not to say there isn't work going on to correct this. There was an effort to create a set of specs that defined how a Linux file system should be organized, but you have no guarantee that a particular distro is going to support that.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by sowens
    [...] Windows offers basically a single package system for the installation of files, not counting those companies that decide to write their own. [...]
    None of those are truly package systems in the same sense as a Linux one, though. OTOH, there are quite a few people willing to roll their own installation routines. Even Microsoft's own programs don't do a very good job ensuring that .dll versions don't get all screwed up.
    This is not to say there isn't work going on to correct this. There was an effort to create a set of specs that defined how a Linux file system should be organized, but you have no guarantee that a particular distro is going to support that.
    I'm fairly sure that once the LSB standard is finallized that all the major distros will gladly jump on board.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #25  
    down to there even being Windows 3.x installations out there in real world use.
    But that doesn't need to be supported. It's easy to define 'supported OSes' in windows. IE, Win 98, ME, and 2K. With Linux, you'd have to say 'kernel versions 2.4 and newer, KDE and/or GNOME GUI, Redhat and Slackware Distributions with the following components installed:" That would confuse most consumers.

    There was an effort to create a set of specs that defined how a Linux file system should be organized
    Can anyone point to that? THAT'S my biggest problem with Linux right now. I still don't get what each partition is specifically for, if you actually need each partition, and if there is consistency between applications in terms of what software get's installed on which partition. If I have two drives with different partitions, will components for one application be installed on multiple drives?

    For instance, I have a web server. Where do I put a person's HTML files so that they can FTP into it? On the /USR partition? In the Apache directory? From what I understand, it doesn't matter, but it'd be nice to have a bit of logic to the file structures.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by homer
    But that doesn't need to be supported. It's easy to define 'supported OSes' in windows. IE, Win 98, ME, and 2K. With Linux, you'd have to say 'kernel versions 2.4 and newer, KDE and/or GNOME GUI, Redhat and Slackware Distributions with the following components installed:" That would confuse most consumers.
    Or they could just use a few common distro version numbers (e.g. RedHat 7.1, SuSE 7.2, etc. or higher) and put the kernel specs in fine print. This doesn't seem any worse than the comparable Windows reqs.
    Can anyone point to that? [...]
    Here it is.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #27  
    Or they could just use a few common distro version numbers (e.g. RedHat 7.1, SuSE 7.2, etc. or higher)
    But then you are limiting the market if you only support a few distributions, which means you'll sell less software. Maybe that's OK. I don't know.

    Thanks for the link. I think a standardization will go a long way towards making Linux more competitive in the consumer market.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by homer
    But then you are limiting the market if you only support a few distributions, which means you'll sell less software. Maybe that's OK. I don't know. [...]
    Well, I'd say that the number of general consumer distros is probably going to be relatively small (4 or 5). I don't see how that's more limited than today where people support 4 or 5 Windows flavors at the most [98/Me/2K/XP (95 and NT are being quickly obsoleted IME)]
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #29  
    Toby,

    Will it ever be possible/feesable for Mac to port its OS to the Intel x86 platform? I mean, if they can "Carbonize" (thats the last time I will ever use that euphemism) Unix, then why wouldn't they want to give Mac fans the opportunity to install the OS on a good ole Windows machine?

    To be clear -- I am not talking about "emulating" a Mac, but implementing an entire OS on the x86 system (though perhaps allowing a duel-boot Mac/Windows scenario). I've never even heard of this possibility being addressed. Is there some underlying reason?
  10.    #30  
    Originally posted by Keefer Lucas
    To be clear -- I am not talking about "emulating" a Mac, but implementing an entire OS on the x86 system (though perhaps allowing a duel-boot Mac/Windows scenario). I've never even heard of this possibility being addressed. Is there some underlying reason?
    Though not directly addressed to me, it is very possible to run Mac OS on a PC - even OS 9 could've been ported. Apple would have a hard time staying alive (so much for adding credence - I'll add a little fever instead) for the first couple of years during the restructuring. It would also remove the advantages a hardware monopoly offers.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  11. #31  
    Feel free to chime in anytime ****!

    Couldn't Apple do both? Build a "native" software solution for PC users who are sick of Microsoft, AND maintain its own native hardware and software? The "true" Mac hardware/software combo could offer certain existential benefits that maintain its "preferability" among Mac hard-core users, while offering an intriguing option for life-long PC users.

    I am not interested in dumping Windows XP for Linux, but I might be interested in trying Mac OS for a couple years, especially with my kids entering school (where they use all Macs).
  12.    #32  
    Originally posted by Keefer Lucas
    Feel free to chime in anytime ****!

    Couldn't Apple do both? Build a "native" software solution for PC users who are sick of Microsoft, AND maintain its own native hardware and software? The "true" Mac hardware/software combo could offer certain existential benefits that maintain its "preferability" among Mac hard-core users, while offering an intriguing option for life-long PC users.

    I am not interested in dumping Windows XP for Linux, but I might be interested in trying Mac OS for a couple years, especially with my kids entering school (where they use all Macs).
    Apple could port a crippled and convoluted version of the Mac OS, but wouldn't that be windows?

    To answer your question, not really. As soon as Apple moves away from its hardware monopoly - even in the slightest - very few people would buy a macintosh. God knows I wouldn't. I want a system I can open up which runs everything I put into it as much as I want an optimized and tightly integrated system. Right now those options are mutually exclusive. *nix has the potential to do both, IMO. Apple's move to OS X reiterates its dependance on hardware sales. Aqua will eventually get ported (giving you your Mac on PC dream) but more importantly, Mac gets more applications and stability for their hardware. *nix users benefit, too. If I'm developing an application, it's going to run on windows if I want money. If, with a little effort, I can make that application run on 99.9% of all other OS's, I will make more money.

    Even after an aqua-clone is ported, there is going to be something in buying a Mac as the OS is "official." For hard-core Mac users, that's worth the extra money for the hardware (and everyone who's bought a macintosh would be considered hard-core since that is exactly what they have done). I'd drop everything if I could get an official mac OS on my P1. As it is, I will only buy computer systems from Apple and will have one system that will be a decendant of the P1 I'm typing this on (running linux once I find a dvd/tv player and cd burning software).

    Speaking of which, can someone link to a DOS emulator for linux?
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    Aqua will eventually get ported (giving you your Mac on PC dream) but more importantly, Mac gets more applications and stability for their hardware.
    I'd qualify it as "concept" more than it was a dream. The last time I dreamt of anything Apple related, I was chasing Steve Jobs through the Central American jungle with a paintball gun.
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by Keefer Lucas

    Will it ever be possible/feesable for Mac to port its OS to the Intel x86 platform? I mean, if they can "Carbonize" (thats the last time I will ever use that euphemism) Unix, then why wouldn't they want to give Mac fans the opportunity to install the OS on a good ole Windows machine?
    Technically, the OS has been ported. There's an x86 version of Darwin available, with a complete set of GNU utilities, X11, etc.

    The problem is that Aqua hasn't, and most likely won't, be ported to x86 anytime soon (unless, of course, the rumours of Apple looking to move to the Athlon processors are true).
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by sowens
    Technically, the OS has been ported. There's an x86 version of Darwin available, with a complete set of GNU utilities, X11, etc.
    Good thing I read through before wasting my breath repeating something. Also, wasn't NeXTStep available for x86 anyway?
    The problem is that Aqua hasn't, and most likely won't, be ported to x86 anytime soon (unless, of course, the rumours of Apple looking to move to the Athlon processors are true).
    Don't tease me.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #36  
    unless, of course, the rumours of Apple looking to move to the Athlon processors are true
    I haven't heard anything about that. Were'd you here that?

    I don't see that happening, though, as that seems to be a radical re-write of a lot of system code. Plus, We're supposed to be seeing 1.5 ghz PPC chips next year as well.

    BTW, apparently there's going to be 'big news' at the Macworld convention Monday.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  17.    #37  
    Originally posted by homer
    BTW, apparently there's going to be 'big news' at the Macworld convention Monday.
    Jobs is expecting?
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  18. #38  
    I'm chiming in as a relative newcomer to Linux. I specifically chose to go the Linux route for my computers at home because I was tired of MS. I think as more and more people use computers for any length of time, you'll get more people like me who would rather recycle an old computer instead of throwing it away.
    Linux makes that much easier to do.
    (An aside, before I replaced the 3 GB HD on my old Compaq I lost the ability to use Win95 completely on it-I couldn't re-install it. As a lark I tried installing Linux on it with a RedHat CD. Presto! Worked like a charm, specifically because the distro was "smart' enough to work around the bad sectors on that HD. Now that the Compaq has a 20GB on it I tried reinstalling the Win95 for a dual boot and the software won't recognize the old computer!)
    MS has specifically linked it's future in the "next big" upgrade (and it always seems to release the newest one right after I have to buy a computer. They have no incentive to offer support for old versions.
    The great thing about Linux is you can find some nut (I mean that in a nice way) somewhere running almost any version (whether he/she is using any equipment close to what you have is another story)
    I still haven't decided which GUI I'm going to settle on (I have both KDE & Gnome on both my desktops), but I'm much happier with futzing around with Linux 'cause I didn't have too pay so gosh darned much for it. Money can be made in Linux software. Just not by a company like MS, and probably not a bizillion dollars.
    (Of course WinME has to stay on this PC until I can show my wife that she can do everything she currently does in Linux. My other two computers have permanently kicked the Windows habit.)
    Michael

    Oh yeah, Happy New Year to y'all!!
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    (Of course WinME has to stay on this PC until I can show my wife that she can do everything she currently does in Linux. My other two computers have permanently kicked the Windows habit.)
    Just don't tell your three sons that you can play some really cool games on a Windows PC. It'll be a long wait for Pajama Sam for Linux!
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by homer

    I haven't heard anything about that. Were'd you here that?

    I don't see that happening, though, as that seems to be a radical re-write of a lot of system code. Plus, We're supposed to be seeing 1.5 ghz PPC chips next year as well.
    It was on one of the Mac rumour sites. Can't remember which one, but it was a while ago. Definitely before the 1+ Ghz PPC chip announcements, so it may just have been a way for Apple to get Motorola moving on faster parts. Who knows.


    BTW, apparently there's going to be 'big news' at the Macworld convention Monday.
    Well, we can always hope for flat panel iMacs, but I'm guessing it'll be the announcement of the first G5 desktops.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions