[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[OT,FLAIMBAIT] Re: Users ready for Debian on the Desktop



On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 13:33, Dale Welch wrote:
> Oh yes on my laptop windows xp was heavenly.  XP installed itself on my
> laptop in less than hour with all peripherals working. First time my laptop
> didn't reboot every hour
> Now that my laptop has Linux after several days and three different kernels
> my sound still doesn't work.

It sounds as if your expectation of "operating system on which all known
hardware works automagically" is ultimately the reason for your
disappointment.

> But on here all i've got so far has been "compile the kernel yourself".
> Sorry, but it's got a long time before linux is ready for most people.
> They will only be able to use linux if someone else installs it for them.
> I remember the days when device drivers were a major pain under early forms
> of windows and dos.  That's one of the reasons plug and play came into
> being. And yes i was there when dos 1.0 came out, one of my early computers
> came with both MSDOS and CP/M.
> 
> But if you have to recompile the kernel every time you need a new driver...
> most people can't do that... and if they have to have someone else do it
> then most will have to pay and they aren't going to do that if they can just
> use windows instead.
> 

You do not have to recompile the kernel to install a new driver. At
least, not because of anything to do with linux or debian.

The only circumstance under which that might possibly be necessary is if
the driver is not part of the official kernel *and* is not packaged by
debian, *and* cannot compile against the kernel headers. With that being
the case, how can you reasonably assert that it represents a shortcoming
on the part of the kernel or debian? If manufacturers decided to ship
windows drivers as source tarballs, do you think that that would reflect
in any way on the windows(NT/DOS) kernels?

> Sure i can get linux up and running in a short time but then sound and best
> video options take experimenting to get to work.  It will not be until linux
> has a good plugnplay and you not have to recompile the kernel because you
> changed video cards.  Until you get the hardware oems supporting linux with
> proper drivers...  it won't be ready.  

Again, if all the oems in the world switched to source tarball drivers
on windows, would that reduce windows' readiness? I sincerely challenge
you to convince me that the actions of oems has any bearing on the
argument.

And on another note, if a person doesn't feel that the effort required
to learn a new and different OS outweighs the benefits, they should
probably stop for a moment and ask themselves what they are really
trying to accomplish.

> And it is many years past the time
> when a driver should be able to be dynamically loaded to almost any version
> of linux instead of being an object dedicated to a certain compile.
> 

Since this is in the context of a comparison, please tell me how to make
my windows 3.1 drivers work under win95, or win95 drivers work with NT.
the windows family does indeed maintain binary compatibility for their
drivers over a longer period, but if you are upgrading your kernel often
enough for this to be a burden on you, then you do not fit the
description of the user for whom this is an issue. (Can I get a show of
hands from kernel 2.2.x users?)

> I also have not found a decent "Knowledge base" system for retrieving fixes.
> Receiving "RTFM" is tantamount to saying "Read Thirty Full Manuals" and
> don't bother us again.
> You know now that i think about it Xenix may have been easier to set up ;-).
> (and yes in about 1982 i was a senior in high school programming a medical
> records package under xenix).
> 
Xenix's ease of installation/setup doesn't seem to have kept you using
it, I suppose that indicates that there are other factors to take into
consideration.

> And i used FreeBSD for years on a p75.  Red-Hat wants more money then
> microsoft if you want it to work (on their web page there aren't any obvious
> links to even mail lists... only ways to pay them money).
> 
<sigh> www.redhat.com, click Support&Docs click Support Forums on the
links block on the left. 

If this is indicative of the level of effort you are willing to put into
things, namely - not trying at all and then blaming the people trying to
help you, it is no wonder you are not having much luck.

Sorry for what I'm sure will be taken as an attack on you, it certainly
isn't intended to be, rather I am hoping to wake you up to the fact that
your anecdotal evidence and frustration does not necessarily indicate
the level of readiness of anything other than your hardware manufacturer
and yourself.

-Mark

> --dale
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Sanchez" <sanchezr@hotmail.com>
> To: <frank@gevaerts.be>; <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Users ready for Debian on the Desktop
> 
> 
> > >
> > >From: Frank Gevaerts <frank@gevaerts.be>
> > >To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > >Subject: Re: Users ready for Debian on the Desktop
> > >Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:36:19 +0200
> > >
> > >On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:53:59AM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> > > > This is a very important but seldom realized point.  I invite anyone
> who
> > > > claims that "Linux is hard to install" to attempt a ground-up install
> of
> > > > any version of windows.
> > >. . .
> 



Reply to: