Friday, August 22, 2008

Certified to suck

Hey guys. Turns out, I had the awesome privilege to look in to Linux certification this past week. You know, like how when Novell says SUSE runs well on some laptops, then, well, it should? Well, turns out they have a funny definition of "well".

So umm, lets see, say I'm looking at HP's certification page, and I decide the 6510b is the one I want. Oh, look, it's certified by Novell. But you know, I'm thorough, so let me check out the certification report.

Nice, this thing is YES CERTIFIED. Ok. So far so good. Let me take a look under the Tested Configuration spec. Desktop Effect Enabled? Yes. Cool. Power Management? Also Yes. Sweet. That means I'm set to go right?

Oh, what are these Config Notes?

1) Intel 865GM graphics needs to install seperately, please download the driver from http://forgeftp.novell.com/hp/HP-Compaq-6510b, and follow instructions 2) Suspend to disk and Suspend to RAM: Hotkey (fn+f3) does not work, however, powersave -U and powersave -u function at the command line and hibernate, sleep works when invoked from the power management icon on the gnome panel. Occasionally, the system may need a reboot when waking up 3) Same behavior as #2 is observed when Desktop Effects are enabled.


Uhh. Certifcation Fail? How the hell is this acceptable? You're telling me that you've certified a machine that, when I put to sleep, I might "Occasionally" lose my data? Great guys. You've proved to me that your definition of working "well" really means "occasionally, not at all".

And then farther down on that page, look at the driver that they used to check the video card. fbdev_drv.so? Seriously? the frame buffer driver?

YES! I'm certified to have a 1990's era desktop experience with this machine. Super Hyphy. So now, not only do I know that the experience will likely suck on this machine, I also have no idea what the hell you mean when I see all the other machines that have been certified.

I'm glad you've got all this money from Microsoft and you've decided to invent a huge system that tells me absolutely nothing. Think of all the Ximian folks that you could have paid to stay to maybe actually finish Evolution.

322 flames:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 322   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

reminds me of certified for vista.

Anon E Moose said...

Point #3 seems to suggest that enabling desktop effects doesn't fix the problem.

At least they're trying, even if it smacks of Fail.

Brad said...

lol like vista is supposed to have enhanced security

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid14_gci1324395,00.html

and as for hibernation, your critizing Linux and IBM for maybe sometimes failing, ever tried windows on hibernation?

Windows is Joke just like this blogs author

Momma said...

@brad


Right, so we're supposed to believe some attention whore without any proof? I guess lusers are used to it...



Heres a challenge. Find me a kernel bug in *ANY* NT kernel based OS that shows a reproducible bug caused by MS code. Really ANY. Go back a decade. Take your time. I'll wait.


Oh and take a peek here if you have some free time. http://www.milw0rm.com/platforms/linux

Kernel Exploits. WITH WORKING CODE.
This is fucking __ EMBARASSING __

Anonymous said...

we need more hate, wtf linux hater, what's up the the not-so-hateful posts lately? :)

Steven Fisher said...

Ah, but who really needs suspend on a laptop anyway? I mean, a laptop.

Snicker.

It'd be interesting to follow the money on that certification program, wouldn't it?

Great find.

ranpha said...

@brad

Windows's hibernation is not perfect, but it works much better than Linux's.

Anon E Moose said...

Brad: When the power goes out and my UPS batteries get low, my Windows 2003 Servers hibernate, and they hibernate so fine that even I was surprised at how well it works.

And laptops? I don't recall any of the small number of laptops I've ever owned having trouble with hibernation in XP, though it's a feature I rarely use.

Windows is the most successful joke in the industry, I'd say.

Now I'll go, having fed the troll.

Jack said...

Works for me!
No wait, it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

ACPI has been spotty on Linux and probably always will be.

But I'm not complaining. ACPI functions don't work at all on my systems with any other Unix-like OS.

Suspend and hibernation works perfectly on my laptop--including the suspend hotkey, whereas only hibernation only works on my desktop.

That said motherboards made by Foxconn motherboards now have first class ACPI support in Linux and Foxconn designs boards for many manufacturers.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous at 5:32:

apci sleep and hibernation works wonderfully on OSX. that's a uniz-based system, right? stop making excuses.

Anonymous said...

Only on Mac hardware. ACPI would be a breeze if Linux only needed to account for one manufacturer's implementation in BIOS.

I installed OS X on my PC once and ACPI was totally broken, among many other things.

Anonymous said...

Sleep and hibernate work for me on Windows. Too bad I've never had it work on Linux. Interestingly enough it doesn't have a consistent fault. It either: powers up but the screen stays black as if the screen refuses to wake up, locks up, tricks you into thinking everything went fine but no new processes can be launched*, works fine for a few minutes then crashes, or works fine but crashes on shutdown.

*This is pretty interesting, applications that are running will still run however no new applications can be launched. GUI menus fly out but aren't functional, hot keys do not work, if a Terminal is open commands do not execute--restarting X does not fix this.

Anonymous said...

Depending on your hardware you can get OS X sleep, hibernation, and shutdown to work properly if you apply a patch.

I believe the author of BSNES did it.
http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/articles/osx86/

But yeah, this is a real ugly solution but what do you expect from an OS not designed to run on everything?

Anonymous said...

@Brad: How unexpected that you chose to ignore the security researchers themselves clarifying that the reports regarding the hole they found were uninformed and completely overblown.

And hey, if Linux is so OMG SECURE why did I get an email today stating that RedHat's and Fedora's servers had been 0wned?

julian67 said...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929734 entitled "You may experience problems after you resume a Windows Vista-based computer from sleep or from hibernation"

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833837/en-us entitled "You receive a "Stop 0x0000008E" error message after you resume your laptop computer" (XP)

There are lots more if anyone cares to search "microsoft windows suspend resume problem", including known bugs fixed and unfixed described by both MS and their OEM/vendor partners (I wouldn't pay too much attention to the numerous user reports, we've seen here at lh there are plenty of people who can't tie their shoelaces without falling over) Like the subject of this blog today it's not exciting reading or news to anyone. It's not unusual for any OS to occasionally fail to resume from suspend. RAM is volatile. I have a laptop with XP SP3 that occasionaly fails to resume from suspend but always resumes from hibernate. The same laptop hasn't yet failed to resume from suspend or hibernate in Debian though it's occasionally slow to start from hibernate, but I have another laptop that occasionally suspends/resume unreliably in Debian (no other OS installed to compare).

I'd hope MACs do this better than MS or GNU/Linux or BSDs because the OS is written for known hardware and the drivers and power management should be extremely well implemented. Operating Systems which are installable on a wide variety of hardware are subject to variations in the BIOS, the GPUs, the drivers and so on.

Has the linuxhater blog scraped all the way to the bottom of the barrel yet? For someone who claims technical expertise and real world IT experience this is a very lame subject, the sort of thing to expect from someone who has only very little practical experience of different hardware and operating systems. Perhaps the authors take it in turns and sometimes we get a rant with a point and sometimes we get the arse end of a google search?

I mean for the last week Fedora servers have been down, they finally admitted they got owned and now Red Hat has announced they got some of their servers owned and package signing keys compromised. And lh makes a blog post about a laptop that *might* fail to resume.

Jesus fucking christ, lamer and lamer. What happened, did you get codebitch and netjerkoff doing your research?

Brian said...

@julian67
Are you serious. KB articles exist for issues that are *fixed*. The XP issue was fixed 4 years ago. The Vista one, judging by the timestamps on the files, was fixed in first quarter 2006. These bugs weren't universal even at the time, it turns out to be hard to support a huge swath of hardware. But Microsoft has done a remarkably good job.

In my experience since XP SP2, suspend/resume has been flawless. I can't remember having a system lock up. With my laptop docked and a bunch of peripherals attached, Vista with SP1 recovers from suspend faster than my desktop monitor can wake up. The laptop by itself wake up almost instantaneously.

The only thing comparable is OS X and they have a tiny set of hardware to deal with and Apple isn't too terribly concerned about breaking backwards compatibility.

Anonymous said...

I _have_ a Mac (iMac mid-2007) and even it has problems waking up from sleep in OS X. (It panics about half the time after being woken up; it seems like some kmod gets unloaded yet other code still tries to call it. After a few weeks, I decided to stop using sleep mode.) Windows? No problem (although I do have one desktop box that liked to wake up from sleep every few hours, until I turned off the wake up timer.)

Anonymous said...

The site (http://developer.novell.com/devnet/yes/) uses flash. Does it mean it doesn't run in linux? As I'm not a masochist anymore, I don't have any linux boxes to try it out.

julian67 said...

Brian these are just two examples to show that the problem isn't really very interesting and doesn't say anything about the relative merits or otherwise of Linux, Windows or Mac.

It happens on all OS even on certified hardware.

As I mentioned in my earlier post there are far juicier stories out there at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Linux has trouble with hibernation/sleep. Yes, Windows has trouble with it too (I have many Windows systems that just don't wake up). I've had Macintoshes (PPC) that wouldn't wake up either. This isn't about ACPI issues, not even in any OS. This is about a Linux certification program that gave an automatic pass to a system that fails at Linux badly. Manual-install graphics driver (an easy thing to do of course for anyone), manual sleep/hibernate from CLI (easier), and it occasionally doesn't wake up (losing state data, potentially corrupting other data). This certification is at best meaningless and realistically misleading, just a sticker they bought for this model.

Since graphics won't work when booting the install disc, and when that is fixed (by someone who would know how (not me)) the sleep function will still cause a system freeze, I would say that this laptop is currently Linux Incompatible. I wonder if HP would like my NO Certified Broken SUSE stickers.

LinuxHater is providing a useful service by bringing attention to this near-fraudulent "certification" program.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but who really needs suspend on a laptop anyway? I mean, a laptop.

Feature doesn't work in Linux, THEREFORE PEOPLE DON'T NEED IT.

Anonymous said...

Some punk stunted:

"ever tried windows on hibernation?"

And the answer is:

*fanfare*

Yes!

It bloody works every single time! Hibernation, standby, it just simply worked on any Windows computer I ever got my hands on, and guess what, for the last 10 years up to today, I have not seen a *single* Linux machine, Desktop, Laptop, you name it, on which either hibernation or standby have worked reliably, in fact, on most of them it didn't work at all.

So, again in brief: Take any given computer. Run Windows, activate standby. 99.99 Chance of working out of the box.

Same computer, Linux. Activate standby. Roughly estimated outcome:

- Nothing happens at all (80%)
- System suspends, doesn't resume (15%)
- System suspends, resumes now and then (5%)

Anonymous said...

So it's not okay for Microsoft to list a machine as "Vista Capable" even though it could run the OS with a caveat of not being able to run the eye candy on some machines but it's perfectly okay to certify laptops for SUSE with caveats like sleep and hibernation not working properly, expected crashes after resume, and graphics problems.

Yay for inconsistent reasoning!

Anonymous said...

While the real point is that the laptop shouldn't have been certified, note that there is a reason ACPI suspend support tends to suck on linux, at least on hardware not designed from the start for linux. It's simple really, Gates ordered ACPI to be fucked up from the start with non-microsoft stuff (turns out it breaks half the time with microsoft stuff too of course...)

Anonymous said...

You don’t need that feature anyway™.

Anonymous said...

Linux is like a little brother - you're not supposed to bring it's faults up.

It's not his fault he skins his knees!

Luser said...

Dear Linux Hater,

I've started reading your blog not too long ago, and I've yet to catch up! You've a lot of very valuable criticism of Linux, the developers' mindset, and the community. Have you considered compiling all your lampooning into a slightly terser book? I'm sure linux users other than you and I, who don't have time to wade through your blog, could benefit from your drops of wisdom in a compact guide to linux, why it sucks, and everything. If it were up to me (which it isn't), your blog/hypothetical book should be required reading for all the linux developers.

Eagerly awaiting "The LinuxHater's Guide to the Linux",

Luser

julian67 said...

"Yes, Linux has trouble with hibernation/sleep. Yes, Windows has trouble with it too (I have many Windows systems that just don't wake up). I've had Macintoshes (PPC) that wouldn't wake up either.This isn't about ACPI issues, not even in any OS. This is about a Linux certification program that gave an automatic pass to a system that fails at Linux badly."

So your Macs weren't genuine Macs certified to work by Apple? Your Windows machines didn't have that cute "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" sticker? Those stickers aren't for decoration, it means the product has gone through testing and been Certified by MS!!!!

Some relevant information (this is about Vista's logo/sticker/certification program): http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/WLP30program.mspx

If it isn't certified it doesn't get the cute sticker ;-)

Anonymous said...

I think you guys all miss the point here. Whereas every OS has its own little problems here and there, the pure market share allows Microsoft to have a few (hundred) thousand boxes not to wake up from sleep, it allows OSX to have them too, since the percentage of the machines that work is so much higher than the ones who don't.
But on Linux, you have, how many? Like 300 different distros or so to test and with the marginal market share Linux, the percentage of broken boxes compared to working ones is quiet higher.
With Linux, you can't say anymore that "well unter 1/1000[000 whatever the actual number might be here]" has problems with feature X, you would need to say that "well under 5%" have that problem.

Anonymous said...

@Julian67

Here's the difference: if it is MS certified and it doesn't work it's probably an anomaly or some bug introduced after testing (patches). In this SUSE certification they know damn well that it doesn't work and they're giving it the green light anyway.

julian67 said...

Do you think MS's or Novell's or anyone else's certification is a promise of perfection? It isn't. That's why we see driver updates, firmware updates, BIOS updates, software updates, product recalls....all on certified products.

Novell are being completely up front and open about what their certification means. They're not hiding anything, they're describing deficiencies publicly. Their certification program is for their enterprise products, you can be fairly sure that people making purchases for businesses are going to at miniumum read this stuff before they start handing out serious money for hardware and software.

Certified for XP, or Certified for Vista or Certified for SLED doesn't guarantee bug free. It guarantees validity of your warranty.

Anonymous said...

By the way, from the 2210b:

"3) Wireless connection was not tested due to a lack of an Intel Linux driver for the wireless adapter, will perform wireless stress test when driver becomes available."

Holy shit, wireless doesn't work on a notebook and it gets certified? WTF good is a notebook without wireless?

Could you imagine if Microsoft bulled this bullshit on you? It'd be a shit storm.

Anonymous said...

@Julian67

You still don't get it. This isn't about bugs, defects, or deviations; it's about known problems that occur on one-hundred percent of all certified products to which the certification authority knew about and considered.

This certification doesn't really mean anything given what qualifies. What does the certification mean when important functions, such as wireless networking, suspend, and hibernate are missing but the product is still certified? What are they communicating here? If I was looking for a Linux certified laptop I'd expect all the hardware to work and not a huge list of caveats.

trickyDick said...

how about a "works for me!" linux certification program? you just print the sticker yourself, glue it to your "box" and make the world know you are a luser:)

uray said...

most of the time I use laptop for work, and i never shutdown my windows for more than 2 months, always hibernate when I finished my work, and continue tomorrow, I never save my data before hibernate just leave it as is. it works flawless. on Linux you wouldn't try it if you dont want to lose your data (or the OS).

well, its understanable since linux are for servers, and servers wont hibernate, but on the desktop or even worse on laptop, linux sucks on everythings. and what made I laugh is they said every year is "the year of Linux on the desktop" LOL!

julian67 said...

The certification doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, which is more to the point.

It "Indicates that HP has partnered with the Linux provider to complete the certification. HP does not sell bundled hardware including or offer HP support of this Linux distribution. Customers can purchase the Linux distribution and obtain support for the certified platform from our Linux partner."

It's a program for enterprise cutomers. It tells them the hardware has been tested and to what extent it works (or not) with the software. That puts them in a position to make a decision to buy (or not).

uray said...

btw, i think the compiled book from this blog is a very good idea, it should entitled "Why Linux is sucks" seriously.

Anonymous said...

My laptop suspends, hibernates and resumes flawlessly in Linux.

So a user experience is clearly dependent on the hardware and version of the kernel.

However, I wont be the Linux proponent in this case. Certified hardware should live up to the rating.

Novell's system certification program doesn't seem very creditable if quirks can exist and still pass.

Anonymous said...

I installed OS X on my PC once and ACPI was totally broken, among many other things.

Obviously. It kinda goes with the whole installing on unsupported hardware, you shouldn't expect it to work; it isn't supported.

If it did, and thus was supported, it's be _supported_ hardware. Hilarious how that works, isn't it?

Azathoth said...

i too always use Hibernation in my laptop with Vista and works flawlessly. It's much faster to wake up from hibernation than to do a normal boot. In 30 seconds i get my laptop fully working with no disk swap in the end at all! And i have only 1Gb and a Pentium M processor and quite a slow hard drive! On the other hand if it wakes up from hibernation in Ubuntu it usually takes as much time as it does in a normal boot which is like 1 minute, the same time it takes to boot Vista normally. So hibernation in Vista is really handy and it works. It saves your time.

Anonymous said...

Big surprise. Linux is only OK for servers and in general, where I don't have to deal with it directly. Don't want it anywhere near my notebook.

Anonymous said...

"Heres a challenge. Find me a kernel bug in *ANY* NT kernel based OS that shows a reproducible bug caused by MS code. Really ANY. Go back a decade. Take your time. I'll wait."

Yeah. I have been following the same for years now. NT kernel and the most crucial services are a lot more secure than anything Linux based. When you go for the server setups (where no services are enabled by default nowadays on Windows), it's virtually unbreakable, and insanely more secure than any Linux.

Auditing the whole kernel by actual professionals (instead of forum wannabe Linux fanbois) several times and having the codebase stable (ABIs, superior architecture etc, helps there) has got a lot to do with that. There's nothing that can really change the fact that the NT kernel is simply better designed architecturically and has got less bugs per loc.

The 3rd party drivers are different tale though. Only the ones made by better companies for their flagship hardware are really on the same level. Sadly, many companies write crappy drivers... Not that it would be better on Linux, a lot of those drivers are crap as well.

Momma said...


It's simple really, Gates ordered ACPI to be fucked up from the start with non-microsoft stuff (turns out it breaks half the time with microsoft stuff too of course...)

all hes saying is they spend money working with hardware manufacturers and add extra functionality in hardware and Linux benefits for free because the standard is _OPEN_


Are you too retarded to understand that? This is about ACPI extentions, not about ACPI.


Should I just pity you?

Anonymous said...

Regarding windows kernel bugs:
The blaster worm exploits a buffer overflow bug in the DCOM RPC service, which is required for windows to work (i.e. system is unusable without it). There are other cases as well here, one hilarious example is this, the kernel bug (or feature...) here is that the system crashes when CSRSS dies. The minor detail is that it's trivial to make CSRSS crash by typing some characters in the console!
My favourite is the infamous local privilege escalation exploit, variations of which have existed in NT since its inception. All versions of NT are currently vulnerable to this!
Instead of waiting, you could simply attempt a google search for windows kernel bugs.

Regarding linux kernel quality:
Coverity says it all.

Anonymous said...

How you can bitch about something thats free is beyond me. If you hate it that much, the answer is simple. Don't use it. Its worth noting that the servers that power this blog (blogspot.com) run Linux.

Anonymous said...

Ok, this is my second time reading this blog - I thought that maybe it would have some constructive criticisms, instead it's just a bitch fest.

Stop wasting peoples time with you endless whining and do something constructive. Did you think of contacting Novell for some support, before writing this?

Oh and what's even funnier are those who seem to think everything Microsoft is so good, less bugs and what not. Hello, give your head a shake, they would never go public with all their bugs that would certainly hurt their bottom line.

I also sick of the endless security arguments, there no way to be 100% secure on any system, as that would require perfect code written by perfect humans, and perfect humans interacting with the system.

Anonymous said...

Um, the fixes in that Intel driver are fixes on Windows too. Go look at driver downloads for that HP model on HP's site. MS, Novell and others try to do a service to customers by noting what doesn't work and by updating certification reports when something changes. In this case, for the machine you were testing, Windows and Linux have nearly identical problems and driver updates help in both cases.

The exception is suspend which is broken on both but is generally just not as robust on Linux yet. That is not unique to this machine nor to Novell/SUSE.

If you want to flame Linux distros for certifications that shouldn't have happened and your example is suspend and hibernate based, you ought not single anyone out. No machines should ever be certified for Linux with this logic.

Anonymous said...

Well, I am not sure, but I think most of the servers of Google including this one (the blogger.com) is running on Linux.

So, for you to be more honest, I think you should look for a Windows based blogging system to make people believe you :)

Patrick said...

Sleep and waking up...
actually, I cannot even get Windows Vista to shutdown in 10 minutes... if it shutsdown at all.

Give me the beauty of Debian and I will shutdown my laptop instead of hybernating anything

momma said...


Regarding windows kernel bugs:
The blaster worm exploits a buffer overflow bug in the DCOM RPC service,
which is required for windows to work (i.e. system is unusable without it).

DCOM is not the NT kernel. NT Kernel = ntoskrnl.exe


There are other cases as well here, one hilarious example is this, the kernel bug (or feature...) here is that the system crashes when CSRSS dies. The minor detail is that it's trivial to make CSRSS crash by typing some characters in the console!

CRSS is not the kernel either.


My favourite is the infamous local privilege escalation exploit, variations of which have existed in NT since its inception. All versions of NT are currently vulnerable to this!
Instead of waiting, you could simply attempt a google search for windows kernel bugs.

now we're down to "potential" bugs? this is too funny..


Regarding linux kernel quality:
Coverity says it all.

they used a code analysis tool. and don't have ANY information about the NT kernel obviously. so whats the point? its not a comparison.


And anyway I was asking for reproducible bugs. with working code preferably.


no bugs found yet
This is the pure NT kernel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntoskrnl.exe

Anonymous said...

I would say that SUSE is the one thing certified to suck. Its horrible package management system is death to any admin that wants his server up to date in a critical enviroment.

Novell just dont care about those certifications other than a way to get some more money. I cant fathom why any hardware vendor would use SUSE. Why not just put you nuts on a grinder instead?

About ACPI its not so much a Linux problem as a bios problem. Nobody follows the standard so Linux has to work around every single faulty table out there. At first Linux tried to do the right thing and implemented by specs. The more recent aproach to mimic MS Windows bugs as closely as possible has worked a bit better since thats what mobo makers aim for. Still its an awful lot of mobos to learn the quirks for.

Anonymous said...

Dear lusers,

hater wrote about the fact, that blogger runs on linux months ago already:

http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/its-over-blogger-runs-linux.html

Short link:

http://tinyurl.com/67jbpa

I think even the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri and the demons of the deepest hell know by now that blogger runs on linux.

Hater should put the link to the "blogger runs on linux" post prominently on the right side of the main page, as a blink tag, hopefuly then the "blogger runs on linux" whiners will shut up already.

julian67 said...

@momma

if you want to find out about NT kernel vulnerabilities you could start by looking at penetration tools such as metasploit and sites like insecure.org and remote-exploit.org. All kernels will inevitably have some vulnerabilities but people who find them tend not to announce it while there's money to be made ;-) Most publicly known vulnerabilities will get patched promptly but there are plenty of people out there running unpatched systems so these are still useful to ill intentioned people and anyone testing systems/networks needs to know about them and be able to test them so if you dig a little you will find some. If you discover one that no-one else knows about you can make some serious pocket money.

Anonymous said...

That said motherboards made by Foxconn motherboards now have first class ACPI support in Linux and Foxconn designs boards for many manufacturers.

Wait, wasn't Foxconn trying to sabotage Linux through their ACPI tables a month ago ago? What happened?

Oh right, the Linux kernel was the problem, so now all the fanboys are trying to un-burn some bridges.

julian67 said...

edit: it's easy enough to go to microsoft's own site and search for "kernel vulnerability" and you will see a long, long, list of results and subsequent patches. i.e. http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=vulnerability+kernel

Maintaining a kernel is a continuous process and it's not as though one day Bill answers his phone and Steve says "Hey Bill, all the code in the kernel is now perfect and invulnerable, we can release"

They release it hopefully with no known critical problems and then wait for the fun to start. Same with every OS basically, I'm not having a go at MS here, you could do the same and get similar results with most projects. If you want the most secure kernel there is always OpenBSD.

AdamW said...

It's a bit odd, as any Intel 865 graphics chip should work just fine with the intel / i810 driver. I can't think they'd be shipping a version old enough not to support that chip. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Obviously. It kinda goes with the whole installing on unsupported hardware, you shouldn't expect it to work; it isn't supported.

If it did, and thus was supported, it's be _supported_ hardware. Hilarious how that works, isn't it?


Exactly... just like Linux doesn't support all hardware and ACPI implementations.

Anonymous said...

Wait, wasn't Foxconn trying to sabotage Linux through their ACPI tables a month ago ago? What happened?

Oh right, the Linux kernel was the problem, so now all the fanboys are trying to un-burn some bridges.


Its the fault of both. The Linux kernel didn't properly clear the WAK_STS flag on resume but BIOS in G33 motherboard also had bugs other bugs, which is why Foxconn relased a BIOS firmware update for Linux.

http://www.foxconnchannel.com/support/downloads_detail.aspx?ID=en-us0002120
Perhaps but look what protest did?

It wasn't a sabotage attempt but the noise from the Linux community alerted them and now the problem is fixed.

Had there been no massive complaints then Foxconn would of unlikely fixed their part of the issue because they claimed not to support Linux.

Mikko said...

Windows suxx.

Anonymous said...

Windows suxx.

Even as a Linux supporter I feel this remark is pure stupidity.

Anonymous said...

@julian67: It happens on all OS even on certified hardware.

Ummm, nice job missing the entire point of this article. Where did it say in the MS KB articles (that you referenced) that the hardware is certified? Answer: It DOESN'T. Meaning, you're comparing apples and oranges. It could be totally crap hardware and drivers. LH is specifically calling out the scenario where HP + Novell have CERTIFIED the hardware to work with their OS. Ergo, Linux certification is a JOKE. Now, get back to recompiling your kernel or cirle-jerking with your FOSS buddies on IRC, you fucking maroon...

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of morons here... I'm long time linux user and standby/resume never worked for me. I never need it, so i don't mind. Maybe there are more working situations than broken in this segment, i don't know and don't care. But i know that big, giant, "enterprise" companies lie to their customers every once in a while. Who trusts Microsoft blindly? Intel? AMD? IBM? HP? They ALL lied sometime and always will sometime. So what, if they said that pigs can fly, you'd be ranting here now how pigs can't fly? Morons...

Anonymous said...

@anonymous: "How you can bitch about something thats free is beyond me. If you hate it that much, the answer is simple. Don't use it."

A. Linux isn't "FREE" unless your time is worthless. Things that take HOURS or DAYS in Linux can be accomplished in minutes in Windows and OS X.

B. Everyone is tired of the constant hyping of Linux and Windows-bashing by Linux fanboys. Your OS is crap, it will never get any appreciable desktop market share, just admit it and move on.

"Its worth noting that the servers that power this blog (blogspot.com) run Linux."

This blog is about DESKTOP Linux. Try to catch up.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous: "I'm long time linux user and standby/resume never worked for me."

Yeah, we know. Many of us have tried to use Linux standy/resume, and it's CRAP.

"I never need it, so i don't mind. Maybe there are more working situations than broken in this segment, i don't know and don't care."

What's the point of this post? If you "don't care", why the fuck are you posting? Did it ever occur to you that, quite possibly, people besides yourself DO care?

"But i know that big, giant, "enterprise" companies lie to their customers every once in a while. Who trusts Microsoft blindly? Intel? AMD? IBM? HP? They ALL lied sometime and always will sometime. So what, if they said that pigs can fly, you'd be ranting here now how pigs can't fly? Morons..."

[You sound like the Sicilian in Princess Bride. Morons! And we know how he ended up.] Nobody lied here. Novell admitted that they have serious problems with the hardware. But, shockingly, they still CERTIFIED the fucking hardware. WTF?!? It means Linux certification is a JOKE.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous: "Hater should put the link to the "blogger runs on linux" post prominently on the right side of the main page, as a blink tag, hopefuly then the "blogger runs on linux" whiners will shut up already."

Hey, DUMBASS, this blog is about DESKTOP Linux. Fuck you very much.

Anonymous said...

@Momma, aka NT kernel worshiper:

You're wrong, the NT kernel consists of everything that is shipped by MS and executes in ring0, of which ntoskrnl.exe is a minor part (it contains only memory, security, I/O management and the scheduler, a kernel also has networking, hardware management and filesystem support, without which nothing works. The equivalent in linux is vmlinuz, you can have a usable linux system with vmlinuz and sash only. People usually omit hardware drivers when comparing different OSes, because they have short life-times compared to the other kernel parts and aren't always written by the main kernel authors). This means that the windows NT kernel includes HAL, smss.exe, winlogon, ntdll, the registry, rcpss, and various other things like SSL support!

I didn't say that CRSS is in the kernel, I said that when CRSS crashes, the windows kernel crashes as well, which is a kernel bug.

The local privilege escalation isn't a potential bug, it is widely known and exists in one form or another since early versions of NT. This is a widely known, critical vulnerability, why do you need POC code?

Regarding the linux kernel quality:
The Coverity CEO said that "There are other public reports that describe the bug density of Windows, and I would say that Linux is comparable or better than Windows,". His comparison is based on publicly available data.

Anonymous said...

I can't get Sleep to work on my VISTA laptop which came PREINSTALLED with VISTA! If a multibillion conglomerate can't get it right, what makes you think a bunch of shoeless hippies can?

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to blame LinuxHater for running Linux. Windows is a shitty operating system, Microsoft can't never be trusted with the security or stability requirements of a server. You are a moron if you use Windows, and LinuxHater is clearly a clever fellow.

Anonymous said...

My own experience with this is that MY HP laptop (Currently running the Antix version of Mepis/Debian and dual booting with Windows XP) won't fully hibernate in Linux. It will go to low power mode, and will wake up instantly, but doesn't ever go off on it's own. Suspend doesn't work at all. Personally, I find that a minor irritant most of the time, but not enough to change it. (Windows is about the same, but suspend works). Linux will start or stop in less than 30 seconds for me. Windows takes about a minute to stop and about 3 minutes to boot up. I need the suspend in Windows, I don't in Linux.


Where I do have a problem on the laptop is with the Windows. It will suspend just fine, but I have had a lot of problems using the shutdown in Windows Several times I have shutdown and gone to bed. In the morning, the laptop is still 'shutting down'. To fix it, I have to unplug the computer and remove the battery. A PITA.


Linux hater doesn't seem to recognize that. I had the same problem on my previous HP laptop, and on a few desktop machines. Windows of course needs to be shut down weekly to keep the slow downs under control. Yet another Windows bug that Linux Hater doesn't want to talk about.


It's glitches like that that keep driving me back to Linux. I guess nothing is perfect.


Linus was right. Linux just 'sucks less'.

julian67 said...

It's also worth noting that the HP computers referenced in this blog are not available for sale with SLED pre-installed.

The purpose of the certification program is for Novell and HP in partnership to define what works and what is supported.

Anonymous said...

Novell/Suse is really a big disappointment. I bought my laptop also because it was Linux certified.. but it has an ATI Radeon card. fglrx crashes, radeonhd does not support power management, which results in a temperature of 80deg of the laptop. The intel drivers for the wlan seem to work properly, but NM sucks.

I now run vista on it and i'm pretty happy with it, except that I miss zsh (or bash) sometimes..

julian67 said...

It was Novell certified or certified by someone else? Which model is it?

Anonymous said...

@anonymous: "Microsoft can't never be trusted with the security or stability requirements of a server."

First, anybody who says "can't never" is a fucking moron. Second, Linux has been steadily losing market share to Windows on the server side for awhile...

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Linux-Losing-Market-Share-to-Windows-Server/

... and there's a reason for that. Windows 2003 Server is a solid product. Probably the best OS product that MS has ever produced. Easier to administer, scalable, secure, minimal footprint, etc, etc. So, fuck you very much.

julian67 said...

Actually anonymouswintard got it right. You know MS are making progress and gaining market share in servers when you read about 500,000 IIS servers being owned in one week.

http://www.customerhostingreviews.com/news/windows-hosting/microsoft-iis-servers-hacked-in-masse-500000-sites/

LluĂ­s said...

I've been reading this blog for quite some time now, and even being a linux user for quite some years now, I still find much insight and truthful information in almost all the posts (I suppose that's why some people seem to feel hurt), although they are sometimes too much destructive. But hey! this is the "fun" part of this blog right?

Anyway, I still can't understand how you can bash one another like this... Even more, don't you know that the "linux fanboys" are just that? Fans (from "fanatic"; same applies to any "$SOMETHING fanboys", of course).

And another thing that most of you don't seem to appreciate (in the sense of being aware of it), is the ideology behind the whole free software world, which I really appreciate (it was a bad choice the word "free"). That's what it makes it worth despite all the technical pros and cons (although for the use I give to it it provides me more pros than cons).

That's my opinion, and if you just want to insult me for having an opinion differing from yours, feel free to redirect your coments to /dev/null, otherwise feed the blog.

Oh! And thanks for the posts! I really learnt useful things with it :) (like the post on the whole video mess).

apa!

Anonymous said...

@anonymous: Regarding the linux kernel quality: The Coverity CEO said that "There are other public reports that describe the bug density of Windows, and I would say that Linux is comparable or better than Windows,". His comparison is based on publicly available data.

Unless you can run a tool against Windows source code -- and no one has done that publicly -- any attempt at comparison will be crap and pure speculation. In all likelihood, Coverity's CEO is trying to goad Microsoft with such statements into buying his very expensive tool. But, in any case, his opinion on the matter is irrelevant without actually doing the work.

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "Actually anonymouswintard got it right. You know MS are making progress and gaining market share in servers when you read about 500,000 IIS servers being owned in one week.

http://www.customerhostingreviews.com/news/windows-hosting/microsoft-iis-servers-hacked-in-masse-500000-sites/"


Hey, DUMBASS, did you bother to read the following lines from your own link?

“The attacks are facilitated by SQL injection exploits and are not issues related to IIS 6.0, ASP, ASP.Net, or Microsoft SQL technologies,” said Bill Sisk, a communications manager at Microsoft, in a blog post. “SQL injection attacks enable malicious users to execute commands in an application’s database.”

Oh, right. Reading ... comprehension ... what an inconveeeeeeeeeeeenience, right? Fuck you very much.

Anonymous said...

@julian67 - you serious about the 500,000 site thing? If you read the very article you linked, they say it's not due to flaws in IIS or ASP, but due to SQL injection attacks against those developers' applications. If you read the link from F-secure that they provide, http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001427.html, it says the same thing.

Bodhibuilder said...

I know that bashing Redhat now would be just too easy, but then again, isn't the threat of infecting, through every single user of your distro something the most malicious windows viruses can only dream about? It only makes me laugh how most of these linux fansites barely mention the fact. If it were MS servers they wouldn't stop gloating by the end of the year.

julian67 said...

"Hey, DUMBASS, did you bother to read the following lines from your own link?

“The attacks are facilitated by SQL injection exploits and are not issues related to IIS 6.0, ASP, ASP.Net, or Microsoft SQL technologies,” said Bill Sisk, a communications manager at Microsoft, in a blog post. “SQL injection attacks enable malicious users to execute commands in an application’s database.”

Oh, right. Reading ... comprehension ... what an inconveeeeeeeeeeeenience, right? Fuck you very much"


While other security companies say the attacks target a vulnerability in IIS

"Panda Security said that it had alerted Microsoft that a flaw IIS was the cause of all the break-ins. When I asked Microsoft whether they’d heard from Panda or if the hundreds of thousands of sites were hacked from a patched or unpatched flaw in IIS, a spokesman for the company didn’t offer much more information. "

(from the same feature).

I read the whole feature, did you?

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "While other security companies say the attacks target a vulnerability in IIS

"Panda Security said that it had alerted Microsoft that a flaw IIS was the cause of all the break-ins. When I asked Microsoft whether they’d heard from Panda or if the hundreds of thousands of sites were hacked from a patched or unpatched flaw in IIS, a spokesman for the company didn’t offer much more information. "
"


Sorry, DOUCHEBAG, but you're gonna need to try a little harder. It's nothing more than a SQL injection attack...

April 25, 2008 – (HOSTSEARCH.COM) – Panda Security (http://www.pandalabs.com) is urging webmasters to check their website’s pages for the impact of a “massive hacker attack”. The company suggests a vulnerability in Internet Information Server (IIS) has impacted around 282,000 web pages with the possibility of that number rising significantly in the near future.

The vulnerability allows hackers to add SQL code in all web server hosted pages which redirect visitors to a malicious website which “analyzes systems for vulnerabilities that could be used to download all types of threats”.


Coupling that with the blurb that I just sent you from the dude from MS, it's obvious that you've got NOTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHING.

julian67 said...

"April 25, 2008 – (HOSTSEARCH.COM) – Panda Security (http://www.pandalabs.com) is urging webmasters to check their website’s pages for the impact of a “massive hacker attack”. The company suggests a vulnerability in Internet Information Server (IIS) has impacted around 282,000 web pages with the possibility of that number rising significantly in the near future.

The vulnerability allows hackers to add SQL code in all web server hosted pages which redirect visitors to a malicious website which “analyzes systems for vulnerabilities that could be used to download all types of threats”."


from the above that you quoted:"The company suggests a vulnerability in Internet Information Server (IIS) has impacted...."

If it's only an SQL injection attack then why is only IIS targeted and vulnerable to it? Why has the majority webserver (Apache) not been affected by the same attack? What's the common factor to all the attacks? IIS.

Anonymous said...

"how about a "works for me!" linux certification program? you just print the sticker yourself, glue it to your "box" and make the world know you are a luser:)"

;)

http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=linuxstickerny0.jpg

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha ha.

Like Windows certified means anything either. Last time I checked there was a fucking class action lawsuit about how Microsoft fucked up with the "Vista capable" labels. LinuxHater you are getting really bad at this. Maybe it's time to give your blog to another hater.

Anonymous said...

If it's only an SQL injection attack then why is only IIS targeted and vulnerable to it? Why has the majority webserver (Apache) not been affected by the same attack? What's the common factor to all the attacks? IIS.
Hm, Apache is usually backed by MySQL server, so it's actually Apache+MySQL vs. IIS+SQL Server.

Since MySQL (I believe) doesn't allow multiple SQL commands, it's much harder to make meaningful Sql injection attack with MySQL (not that it makes it more secure...).

There are some explanations here:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4294

Rahul Jain said...

What is all the fuss about, I use Windows and Linux (Gentoo) and suspend/hibernation works flawlessly on both. I don't have any fancy hardware, integrated Intel Graphics and core duo. And for all those who can't get suspend too work, just use TuxOnIce.

Anonymous said...

If a computer comes preinstalled with Windows, then you know for sure the user experience will suck. So I think the Windows operating system itself is a good certification for suck.

Long live Mac OS X and Linux!

Anonymous said...

What is all the fuss about, I use Windows and Linux (Gentoo) and suspend/hibernation works flawlessly on both.
So what? I use Windows and Linux (Mandriva) and suspend/hibernation doesn't work on Linux. So, what's the point of your post?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the lawsuit against Microsoft over "Vista Capable". The lawsuit primarily focuses on the ambiguity of the statement. While Windows Vista was certainly capable of being run on those machines, some machines couldn't handle the eye candy (Aero) which is really a trivial matter. This is not on par with being certified for SUSE but not having working wireless adapters.

Rahul Jain said...

@ anonymous, 3:29 PM.
Well, I would try advise you to download hibernate-script from TuxOnIce, that was what I said in my post. Just the scripts, no need to patch your kernel or anything like that.
And check what kernel version you have, suspend/hibernate was only fixed in 2.6.24.

Anonymous said...

@Rahul Jain: Nobody wants to download your trojan.

Rahul Jain said...

@anonymous 3:45 PM,
Wow man, what an intelligent answer. For your information, anything that you have never heard of is not Trojan. Go lookup what TuxOnIce is and then open your mouth. If you do not want to download it, then stop complaining that suspend/hibernate does not work because you don't even want to make an effort to make it work.

Anonymous said...

LOL Linux sux, I uz windoz evryday +I lov windoz Vista +I tnk u losers shd gt ot mor, windoz S w@ seriS ppl uz hu av jobs n lots of $ n gals n Linux S sucky 4 communists n ppl hu r smrt W cmputAs bt thyre nerd Nyway. so linux S 4 nerds

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
JENN

Anonymous said...

@Rahul: I've been there before. I've viewed the source. I can see that it is a trojan. What fuckin' moron writes an open source trojan and tries to get people to download it? Are you fucking stupid?

Anonymous said...

I tried various hibernate scripts, fixing quirks in hal, and whatever. It works for a while, and then some patch kicks in and I'm back to the square one.

I don't give a sh*t anymore.

And, besides, I'm the other anonymous. I don't think TuxOnIce is a virus.

Anonymous said...

Guys we are planning a new LinuxHater style Linux distro called Linsux. Linsux will be for making fun off Linux users and it'll suck like they do. It will be based on the sucky Ubuntu distribution, and be full of Microsoft products and services including MS BOB etc. It will rule. Google etc will be banned from it too because they like Linux, so let me know if you want to contiribute to the Linsux OS. Thank you

Rahul Jain said...

@ anonymous 4:00 PM,
Thanks for clearing that up, I was confused. And you don't give a sh*t anymore, that is perfectly understandable. No one likes to make things work when there is an easy alternative. However, some of us do and that is why we use Linux. Just a difference of opinion, nothing more.

@anonymous 3:59 PM,
I don't understand how TuxOnIce is a trojan. It does what it is supposed to do, however to each his own. However, it would be better if you could come up with some evidence to substantiate your claim. Otherwise, please do not bash the honest work of some one else.

Anonymous said...

@Rahul: You've never seen a trojan disguised as a functioning game before or some other small application? In this case it's a keylogger.

julian67 said...

anonymousparanoidfuckwit please post the link the security advisories that show that anything downloaded from http://www.tuxonice.net/ is a keylogger or anything else malicious.

Or just quit dribbling.

Anonymous said...

@Julian67gnobgoblingcumdumpster: Use the source, dumbass. It's right there. Fuck you, I'm not going spend all day in Google trying dig up some old ass articles.

julian67 said...

actually you're not going to try and demonstrate it because you're so full of shit it's flowing out of you.

If you google you'll find zero results associating tuxonice with keyloggers.

Anonymous said...

@Julian67hasabigdickinhismouth: So if can't be found on Google then it must not exist? Must make people's security jobs easy.
"XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX@someplace.tld compromised"
"0 results returned"
"Thank God!"

julian67 said...

You're the only person who asserts it exists. Show it. Let's all see how a free open source project, widely used, is in fact a set of malware. Come on asshole, prove you're not yet another lame bullshitter (you can't because you are).

Anonymous said...

@Julian67thebigcrybaby:

Proof: http://goatse.cz/

What now? Bitch!

julian67 said...

er, how about a funny reply that hasn't been exhumed from the graveyard of very old internet jokes?

Anonymous said...

@Julian67: Angry because you still fell for it?

julian67 said...

No I'm not and no I didn't. It's ancient. It might be new to you and you probably find it very exciting and stimulating but it's one of the oldest and most well known sites on the www. It was quite funny maybe 4 or 5 years ago. These days linking to it in an attempt to be provocative or funny is the mark of the lamer.

h1d said...

Has blogger.com invented a stuff called 'pagination' with the comment system or they never thought there would be any famous blog to have comments that would really make the page too long?

Quite a waste of bandwidth and users' time going through, in fact no one can catch up when first time they see the comment, the count says '108' in 1 damn page.

It's not like we get a nice separate email for every comment. (Not that we want it that way.) But isn't there something better?

Anonymous said...

The truth is that this blog works on Linux.

What? you already knew it:

"You guys just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if Blogger uses Linux or not. It's not my problem."

"I totally read your asshat minds in my first fucking post."

Tantrum. Excuses. You are running an anti-linux in linux. You knew it and WorksForYou? even worse.

There are a lot of people out there that says 'I totally hate M$, but... for the moment I'll keep using it'. Same for you.

Bill Gates III said...

Linux hater is a fucking retard with no girlfriend or any friends whatsoever, that's why he's got nothing better to whine about than why Linux isn't perfect from his grandmothers basement. Fuck you linux-hater, maybe you are gay and just can't face it up the arse?

Anonymous said...

Linux's 10,000 or so exploits, bugs, virus's since inception <<<<<<<< Microsoft Exploits, bugs, viruses since inception.

Linux's 10,000 some odd exploits, bugs, virus's since inception <<< Mac OS exploits, bugs, viruses since inception

Carcass said...

It is mind-numbing how many people do not get the point of this blog. Of course he knows Blogger runs on Linux. And he obviously knows enough about Linux to get it working better than a lot of people who give up after their third distribution, and still do not have properly working video, audio, wireless, power management, etc.

It seems like the only person who is allowed to criticize Linux implementations, or the monstrosities of X, GNOME, etc. is Linus Torvalds - who does so on many occasion.

Basically, though, it seems like Linux users take the LinuxHater blog far more seriously than companies like HP take them.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the hate. Linux needs some hating to improve itself. People have been afraid to voice out their criticism about Linux because Linux zealots can be such Internet terrorists.

- MacOS user

Anonymous said...

Linux Security fails to secure Linux:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150212/hackers_crack_into_red_hat.html

Game over.

Anonymous said...

@julian67

Hey, freetard. It's really frustrating defending the indefensible. Might as well admit it. Linux sucks big time.

Anonymous said...

so it works the same way like with Vista or even xp installed... so what?

I have a Laptop with Xp which certified for Vista... it sucks to death. during sleep-time you have to reboot it ALL THE TIME not only occassionaly.

Windows is a fucking joke and maybe ther should be some organisation like amnesty international for computers too. My Laptop is tortured with Windows!!!

Quote:
Heres a challenge. Find me a kernel bug in *ANY* NT kernel based OS that shows a reproducible bug caused by MS code. Really ANY. Go back a decade. Take your time. I'll wait.

how can you find a bug in a Kernel which is closed and where it is forbidden to read the source code, doing reverse engineering and all this? I tell you what: the whole windows is a fucking bug.

Anonymous said...

Hey guys, I just received syslog from your Linux server. It says: "kernel_panic: gdi32.dll not found". So, even your own linux is telling you that you should "upgrade" to windows, morons...

julian67 said...

"kernel_panic: gdi32.dll not found" is an error message generated by Microsoft Windows.

It probably means your virtualised Windows under VMWare is taking a dump.

Anonymous said...

@julian67: i was kidding, for tux's sake !!!

julian67 said...

oh....

sorry, on this blog I can't always tell the difference from intentionally funny posts and posts by hysterical ms fanboys :-)

JPA said...

What the f*ck did you expect? It's Novell. They made a deal with the DEVIL...

Squirrel said...

Nothing like the self loathing anonymous internet gaybash to prove how many people have yet to accept their own sexual preference.

Anonymous said...

suspend ??? Just closing and opening the lid on my linux laptop forces me to do a reboot.

Anonymous said...

Debating about operating systems sucks.

Linux works for me and most other people who take the time to research all their hardware before committing to an installation.

If something doesn't work then simply hold off an installation until a driver is available and save yourself hours of frustration.

Some FOSS applications suck but so do many commercial apps, which may bundle adware and all that lovely shit.

I can run/access the same crappy commercial software in *nix via Wine, CrossOver, Mono (sometimes), or Seamless Terminal Services.

Anonymous said...

One of the main problems of Linux are the supporters and developers of it.

You have just to read slashdot for some fine freaks and to find a nutcase, just to to stallman.org or fsf.org


Hater, you should cover more the people behind Linux. They are an endless stream of hillarity.

Here is some fine old article that covers some people behind the "movement":

http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux4.html

Anonymous said...

Exactly... just like Linux doesn't support all hardware and ACPI implementations.

And the point of the post is that it doesn't work even on Novel certified hardware, which implies that the hardware is supported (it wouldn't be certified to work otherwise, would it?)

There's a difference between installing OS X on a PC which is neither supported not certified, and having ACPI fail, and installing SuSE on a Novel certified system and having ACPI fail, namely that you shouldn't expect it to work in the former case, but should expect it to work in the later case.

Anonymous said...

And the point of the post is that it doesn't work even on Novel certified hardware, which implies that the hardware is supported (it wouldn't be certified to work otherwise, would it?)

There's a difference between installing OS X on a PC which is neither supported not certified, and having ACPI fail, and installing SuSE on a Novel certified system and having ACPI fail, namely that you shouldn't expect it to work in the former case, but should expect it to work in the later case.


Correct, I've already discredited Novell's SUSE certification scheme.

More to the point is OS X has great ACPI support because it only has contend with hardware designed by the same manufacturer as the OS.

The same is true with Solaris on Sun SPARC systems.

Linux, however, strives to support ACPI implementations from numerous motherboard and BIOS manufacturers, very few of which officially support Linux.

This is why the Linux kernel tries to emulate Windows as far as ACPI functions go.

julian67 said...

"And the point of the post is that it doesn't work even on Novel certified hardware, which implies that the hardware is supported (it wouldn't be certified to work otherwise, would it?)"

No, they explicitly state what doesn't/may not work.

"There's a difference between installing OS X on a PC which is neither supported not certified, and having ACPI fail, and installing SuSE on a Novel certified system and having ACPI fail, namely that you shouldn't expect it to work in the former case, but should expect it to work in the later case."

Well the difference would be that you shouldn't expect to work the features for which HP & Novell say "this does not work". Strange but true.

If you read the certification, which is how you'd find out it is certified, you'd know there were some things which weren't going to work. Personally I wouldn't choose SLED for this laptop, maybe I'd buy different hardware or investigate different software.

If you looked at the certification and then went ahead and installed SLED anyway and were then surprised when it behaved as described you be....what's the word....oh yeah...an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Anonytard 4:03 AM wrote:
how can you find a bug in a Kernel which is closed and where it is forbidden to read the source code, doing reverse engineering and all this? I tell you what: the whole windows is a fucking bug.

How do you know "the whole windows is a bug" if you can't look for bugs in the source code? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim or are you repeating the Penguin Propaganda you were fed by the 'community'?

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "If you read the certification, which is how you'd find out it is certified, you'd know there were some things which weren't going to work. Personally I wouldn't choose SLED for this laptop, maybe I'd buy different hardware or investigate different software."

I could care less how many caveats and exemptions they put in fine print. How does that change the fact that Novell certification SUCKS ASS? Answer: It doesn't. So, do yourself a favor and stop trying to defend the indefensible. Or, is your self-esteem tied so indelibly to Linux that you can't handle a little criticism? If so, you're a fucking pussy; if not, good for you. ;-)

julian67 said...

You seem to be the expert on ass sucking.

I don't know why it upsets you so much. They say feature X might be a problem. If you need feature X you choose something else (OK a sane person chooses something else while a lame schill gets hysterical and blogs it). It's not like the OS is available pre-installed, it's 3rd party but with the benefit of testing so you know what to expect.

So whose ass are you sucking tonight? Or maybe you're one of those highly flexible yoga people and you can do your own?

Anonymous said...

@julian67

I think the point is that HP's certification page should not really trumpet "YES CERTIFIED" ... if it won't really work with SLED, fully. They should put the good 'ol asterisk in there, as in "YES CERTIFIED* (see below)" just to be clear.

--rockwell

Jose_X said...

Novell has been working to undermine Linux at large at least ever since their huge payoff deal with Microsoft. Instead of HP, I'd go with IBM, white box, or someone else if you want Linux. This has been a very different HP from the one that existed over the past decades.

>> If a multibillion conglomerate can't get it right, what makes you think a bunch of shoeless hippies can?

You discredit yourself with this sort of inane comment.

Multi-billion dollar corporations are involved in life-threatening recalls (forced by government after they tried to hide them).

The hippy thing shows how dishonest you are or how clueless.

Only a fool, someone quite deceived, someone oblivious to the open alternatives, or someone that hasn't yet made the switch trusts their business assets to closed source operating system. It's your business, yet it's controlled by Microsoft!

>> First, anybody who says "can't never" is a fucking moron. Second, Linux has been steadily losing market share to Windows on the server side for awhile...

Funny. Maybe you are right. Maybe you aren't. IDC has been smoking something with many of their bought surveys over the years. How convenient they keep their processes and datasets private.

"Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage."

"The key to stacking a panel is being able to *choose the moderator*."

" "Independent" academic sources* should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted)."

"Analysts: Analysts sell out - that’s their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with."

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

Microsoft struck a deal with Godaddy last year that gave their web server a huge increase in market share. The problem was that their servers were just holding parked domain names. This means their servers were doing nothing of any kind of strain. With 1 million dollars being made by Microsoft in a matter of minutes, they can afford to buy tons of domain names that do nothing on the Internet and use this method to "increase" market share. [That's what their deal with Godaddy was about because their servers were too weak to handle real traffic.]

You can also increase server market share by having an installation start up a bunch of bogus servers and then paying a company like IDC to go and count these.

Microsoft talks up the market share gains based on domain names, but they fail to mention not all web servers do comparable jobs or even close. Buyers need to look at how much of the processing for generated web pages is occurring on which platform. The big boys are using Linux on servers when they need to get real work done without spending 10 fortunes.

On the desktop, Linux is plenty good for many unsophisticated (and sophisticated) users. Those most against Linux on the desktop (besides Microsoft employees) are Windows power users that don't want to have to learn new tricks. It can be psychologically traumatic to learn new tricks. A good psychologist may help here.

Microsoft's OOXML was a fiasco. One of the worst standards ever and most corrupt processes ever. Eg, http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2008060302526NWMSPB

Microsoft is a great candidate for the most deceptive company to have ever been created in the US. The court rap sheet is huge. Their deceptions so obvious in many cases to people that work in the industry.

Where it matters, people are using, not Novell nor Windows, but options like Red Hat Linux (and others). Most that spend on Microsoft have low requirements and apparently don't mind reboots or opening their data up to Microsoft and malware. Governments with easy access to tax funds have also traditionally helped Microsoft acquire huge share [hopefully, this trend is on its way out of fashion, but it's tough to tell with bureaucrats].

There was a Red Hat incident this week. Red Hat's official channel seems clear. Contrast this to the many breaches against Windows at customers' sites.

Microsoft is going to go the way of the Dodo once their interlocking monopolies and associated pricing and control levers fail. The real value of Linux is hardly appreciated by most users today. Linux on the desktop will continue to improve at a very fast pace. As a desktop, it is comparable to Windows in almost every category (ahead in some, behind in others), but it's real value is what will drive future growth in tech and in other industries: it's truly, genuinely open source. Nothing is being hid from the users, and users can make it what they want.

Have you spun a custom Linux LiveCD yet? Your business will thank you for it.

Anonymous said...

bij@julian67: "I don't know why it upsets you so much. They say feature X might be a problem. If you need feature X you choose something else (OK a sane person chooses something else while a lame schill gets hysterical and blogs it). It's not like the OS is available pre-installed, it's 3rd party but with the benefit of testing so you know what to expect.

You just don't get it. If Novell can "certify" something with such glaring flaws, it means that their certification is WORTHLESS. What bothers many of us is that it not only cheapens the meaning of "certification", but is also calls into question whether ANYONE could possibly CERTIFY Linux, except in the narrowest of circumstances. You might as well take a dump and call it "Novell-certified". Naturally, you don't care about that, because you're a Linux fanboy with an ax to grind, and you're only here to reflexively parrot crap about Windows. Fuck you very much.

julian67 said...

Their certification is worthless if:

you can't read

or

you can read but you can't understand

or (as in your case)

you can read, you think you can understand, but in fact you can't, and being a ritalin retard you have a tantrum and wail and cry like a little girl.

or (as in my case)

you're not going to use SLED on HP

Anonymous said...

@jose_x: "Only a fool, someone quite deceived, someone oblivious to the open alternatives, or someone that hasn't yet made the switch trusts their business assets to closed source operating system. It's your business, yet it's controlled by Microsoft!"

Only a fool believes that having source code means having a better solution. Do yourself a favor and read about some of the glaring deficiencies in FOSS development. For example...

http://blog.angulosolido.pt/2008/08/firefox-3-gtk-210-horror-show-open.html

Firefox3 uses GTK2.1+. But since GTK2.1 isn't backward compatible with previous versions, it means you can't run Firefox3 on older distros of Linux without totally breaking a huge number of packages. Sure, the problem CAN be solved with a huge amount of effort. BUT so what. These are the cretins that you're putting your blind faith in. Quite frankly, you're an idiot for depending on them and others like them. They're nothing more than a bunch of fuck-ups.

Anonymous said...

@julian67: "Their certification is worthless if (insert lame justifications here)...
"


No, wrong. It's INHERENTLY worthless. Not being able to run SLED and then still CERTIFYING the fucking thing is ridiculous. And the fact that you're trying to justify it by falling back to the fine print in the relnotes is just incredibly lame. Go fuck yourself in the ass. And if your dick won't reach, use your fucking boyfriend's...

julian67 said...

You seem very interested in people's dicks and asses.

Side effect of the ritalin or just your natural inclination?

thecodewitch said...

CARRIER HAS ARRIVED

Protoss commander needs moar vespene gas for carriers + arbiter invasion fleet. I need someone from the Zasz loving hippie commune on Zerg-occupied Aiur to get it for me, because I don't want to rely on my drones to get it for me anymore, because they are driven by closed source software written by TassadarSoft.

Also, I heard that the zerg cerebrate Zasz excreted an open source OS dubbed "Zaszix" from one of its 57 orifices one time, and those hippie zerg lovers on Aiur tell me its totally awesome and that I should totally install it on every piece of hardware in my fleet. So I'm thinking, why not? I'm sure its open sourceness makes it entirely trustworthy. I'm sure there is no chance I'm being mindcontrolled.

Anonymous said...

julian67 likes the cock.

julian67 said...

You can't seem to mention me without thinking about dick.

You're one of those sensitive boys, right?

Anonymous said...

I already use Ubuntu. Why should I care about some stupid Novell certification? I am not the one who is going to use the HP laptop anyway.

Besides, any Linux user worth their salt would not want to have anything to do with Novell for cooperating with Micro$uck.

Anonymous said...

"Only a fool believes that having source code means having a better solution."

Are you completely retarded? There is no downside to having access to the source code of any program you may run. Think before you say something so stupid.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Firefox 3 and backward compatibility of gtk-2.1:

If you want to mix a gtk < 2.1 system with firefox 3, you can statically link firefox or have the libraries it uses in its directory and add it at the beginning of LD_LIBRARY_PATH. This is how windows and osx handle this. What's the big deal?

Julian67, I admire your patience and persistence, it seems you've managed to get some JulianHaters here!

Anonymous said...

@Julian67 -- I'll give you a hint about businesses purchasing laptops that have notes like "no wireless driver is available for linux", they won't. Businesses are going to want things that are certified to work completely not certified to work with glaring problems. Who the fuck would want that shit? Even if the certification is only for support the technical notes are compelling enough to not warrant a purchase period. Besides what support are you going to get? If they were going to fix the problem they wouldn't need the notes. If anything those notes outline what they'll tell you your SOL on. Afterall, if they could make a fix it'd be in a patch and the notes would say "works after applying X patch". It's fucking bullshit and you know it. Quit being a fucktard and think about how it would be responded to by the business man.

Anonymous said...

If you looked at the certification and then went ahead and installed SLED anyway and were then surprised when it behaved as described you be....what's the word....oh yeah...an idiot.

So it's certified not to work, then. Brilliant.

The little ad hominem at the end was wholly unecessary, don't misunderstand, the idiot part isn't so bad. But to imply that I'd waste a perfectly good laptop by installing Linux on it? Come on, man, that's just below the belt. t_t

Anonymous said...

Besides, any Linux user worth their salt would not want to have anything to do with Novell for cooperating with Micro$uck.

Forget that it's Novell who stepped up during the wjole SCO predicament and essentially got the case thrown out (since they own Sys V, after all).

Forget that Novell employs the likes of Miguel De Icaza and pretty well Ximian as a whole.

Forget that Mono stands to be pretty useful as is almost entirely funded by Novell (due to them employing Ximian)

Forget that Novell is one of the largest corporate contributors to Linux, right up there with Sun, IBM, and RedHat.

Forget that the deal with Microsoft is primarily one for the sake of better interoperability, which is never and bad thing, and has the added bonus to protecting their customers, which actually encourages sane people to become Novell customers, given they're one of those rare companies that feels they owe something to their clients.

Also nevermind that the final draft of the GPL3, although containing clauses prohibiting such deals, expressedly grandfather's in the Novel/MS deal, thusly suggesting that even the FSF sees some value in the deal (or perhaps Stallman had a sudden breakout of common sense, and realised how profoundly asinine it would be to impose new restrictions retroactively).

But no, Novel is obviously pure evil. The most hilarious part is that you're shitting on them for cooperating, while cooperation is one of the cornerstones of open source.

A lot of people like to spout that the deal, particularily the idemnification clauses gives credit to Balmer's patent claims, the fact of the matter is that it's more likely than not that Samba (one of whose major contributors was on Novell's payroll) and Mono (which is chiefly financed by Novell) do indeed infringe on a few MS patents. Wine more than likely does as well, as do things like NTFS tools. But who needs to take any of that into consideration when it requires much less effort to stick one's fingers in one's ears and yell "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA".

Fact is, even if the patent claims are bogus, Novell should get credit for not taking any chances on it. It shows they're a good company to do business with, since they're offering idemnificationm to their clients on the off chance that the product they're selling may result in patent trouble. That's the kind of company I want to be doing business with, because they actually give a shit about what happens to you, as a client, should you do business with them.

They're going the extra mile and proving support beyond just the technical helpdesk kind of support, plus they're trying to make the IT world a better, friendlier place by working toward better interoperability.

I like the fact that Novell and MS are actually trying to make it so that it's easier to have and environment where one can easily mix and match Windows and SLES/D systems. Fact is, most sane people can appreciate the effort as well.

Anonymous said...

Are you completely retarded? There is no downside to having access to the source code of any program you may run. Think before you say something so stupid.

I think the sentiment was more one about possessing sourcecode making a solution a better one by default, regardless of how incpmplete or technically inferior, or less useful the product is.

Sure, there are no real downsides to possessing the sourcecode, though a lot of people would trade access to source for something that works well and does the task it is needed for. Why tinker with something that isn't broken?

Truth is sourcecode on its own isn't always useful either. Open specifications and high quality documentation go much further than raw sourcecode. There seems to be this misconception on the Linux side of open source where the availibility of sourcecode replaces the need for high quality documentation, or that the source in and of itself is quality documentation (the quality of the documentation, relative to other open source projects, say Solaris or FreeBSD is absolutely abysmal, Linux's manpages for example are largely useless in contrast).

Unreadable, out of context sourcecode is of little to no use. And to the non-developper is of absolutely no use.

I'll have to agree with OP that only a fool places more importance on the availibility of sourcecode over anything else (chiefly functionality, usefulness, quality documentation and open specifications, amongst others).

A technically inferior product is not made into a better quality solution sheerly on the basis of having access to source. A solution is of better quality purely on the basis that it is overall a higher quality solution.

julian67 said...

"Julian67, I admire your patience and persistence, it seems you've managed to get some JulianHaters here!"

Thanks! :-) Good things come to those who wait.

"I'll give you a hint about businesses purchasing laptops that have notes like "no wireless driver is available for linux", they won't."

Yup, that's what I said. They read the cert and look elsewhere. After all, anything's better than installing some crappy MS OS.

"The little ad hominem at the end was wholly unecessary"

Which is why it was so enjoyable. You're an idiot.

taffer said...

To be fair (hahahaha, just kidding), at my previous job I used to see all the managers lugging around their XP laptops while carefully keeping them open and occasionally caressing the trackpad so they would'd go to sleep. Because "sleep = death" so very often on XP.

My desktop (a P4 machine using an ASUS motherboard; all high-quality components from big "partners", etc.) at home sometimes reboots instead of coming out of hibernation, too.

This is extra stupid because MS defined the bloody ACPI spec, you'd expect their OS to work with it.

Anonymous said...

Which is why it was so enjoyable. You're an idiot.

My, aren't we witty this morning!

julian67 said...

Thank you! Come again! Next please! Hello Mr Homer....

Jose_X said...

[Anonymous #1]
>> but is also calls into question whether ANYONE could possibly CERTIFY Linux, except in the narrowest of circumstances.

Anything can be called into question at any time. Probably people that accept closed source operating systems like Windows or Vista or Netware to run their business are mostly the ones that have trouble questioning things. Why in the world would someone allow a single company (with horrendous ethics) to be the only one that knows how your own computers are working, as this law-breaking monopolist is the one keeping all the secrets?

Linux is easier to certify since it can be confirmed, except to the extent the hardware vendor keeps their hardware source secret (which is the case almost all of the time).

Linux and open source operating systems (very much unlike Vista, Windows, and Netware) are open with the customers. Linux (very much unlike Vista, Windows, and Netware) does not hide things from the customer. Linux does all of this for $0 or close to $0 in most cases. Linux (very much unlike Vista, Windows, and Netware) does not disrespect nor take the customer for granted. [Yes, I know Linux, Vista, etc don't "do" or "think" or "give", but you get the point.]

>> Only a fool believes that having source code means having a better solution. Do yourself a favor and read about some of the glaring deficiencies in FOSS development. For example...

Only a fool allows their business to be under the control of another company.

FOSS development is superior. I'm waiting for you to start listing specifics, so I can start rebuttling them. Keep in mind all we have achieved even though most developers out there are not yet participating. Companies are moving to FOSS for all their tough processing. Yeah, FOSS has "glaring deficiencies" in your wishful dreams.

>> Firefox3 uses GTK2.1+. But since GTK2.1 isn't backward compatible with previous versions, it means you can't run Firefox3 on older distros of Linux without totally breaking a huge number of packages. Sure, the problem CAN be solved with a huge amount of effort. BUT so what. These are the cretins that you're putting your blind faith in. Quite frankly, you're an idiot for depending on them and others like them. They're nothing more than a bunch of fuck-ups.

Let me briefly point out that an earlier poster already mentioned that it's simple, technically speaking, to overcome what you are crying about, but let me address your legitimate point that users should not be expected to go through this trouble.

Why do I use open source? I depend on source code that I know I or someone else can read and understand and build to use; hence, I can manage risks. I can check up with areas that might be particularly crucial to my setup.

An analogy. Most people don't read legalese, but it's one thing to be given a copy of the contracts to have for your records and should anything come up, and it's a whole other foolish thing to allow the transaction to be conducted without you receiving any kind of legal documents.

The software scenario of not getting the source code is worse though. At least with missing legal contracts, once something happens, the other side will have to produce the documents in court. Meanwhile, Microsoft is likely NEVER EVER going to give you or your descendants all the requisite source code to the code that is running your business today if you buy Microsoft products. Further, source code is functional. Not having source code means that you are missing out in improvements that could be made by you or by others on your behalf. It's very common to have inhouse staff to add customizations. Without source for the majority of the software you are using, you are missing out on many opportunities for improvements. Eg, Travelocity thinks so: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1326240,00.html http://www.linuxtoday.com/storage/2007112901526OPHE As do many many others moving over to Red Hat and other Linux distributions.

If you were a developer and knew how easy it is to end up with malfunctioning code or to sabotage businesses through coding, then you would not be smug.

As for your firefox problem with regards to users, I think you are confused. I don't use Firefox 3. By the time I get around to using it, it likely will come inside the distro ready to go. The distro makers do the hard work not the end users. The end user just downloads and runs the distro. Of course, I can do the work today instead of waiting and then share the solution. In this case, it isn't that difficult, but I admit that I have other things to do, and don't feel an urge to use the latest and greatest browser. I actually like using the defaults that come with the distros I use. I don't customize. Not at this time, anyway.

You are also criticizing a decision taken by a particular open source group (Mozilla's default). There are options in the open source world. What is your option (assuming you had half of an ability to verify this) when your sole supplier of operating system and officeware and possibly even servers goofs or makes decisions that benefit them at your expense and can't be overrided by anyone else? This is a rhetorical question cause you have no recourse, and likely you don't expect to ever have any.

>> I'll give you a hint about businesses purchasing laptops that have notes like "no wireless driver is available for linux", they won't. Businesses are going to want things that are certified to work completely not certified to work with glaring problems.

You aren't talking complete nonsense, but you are incorrect. Businessmen are used to making trade-offs. As a hypothetical, if the only way to get Linux to run was to make a particular compromise, they might be willing to do it. Some issues that exist today with Linux will be gone tomorrow. That is the pattern, and is likely only to improve as more vendors are now defying Microsoft and taking risks with Linux given how many issues Vista has had and how far along desktop Linux has come. [Many more commercial entities are now investing in desktop Linux.. quite a difference from even a few years back.]

That said, if you think the Novell cert is crap and deceptive, you probably aren't the only one thinking along those lines.

Jose_X said...

[Anonymous #2]
>> Forget that it's Novell who stepped up during the wjole SCO predicament and essentially got the case thrown out (since they own Sys V, after all).

Don't be a fool. SCOX had nothing and IBM is/was going to wipe the floor with them.

Novell added clarity that they own something that SCOX was claiming SCOX owned. Novell was in court for their own best interest. Now they have more leverage against future Microsoft deals because of their victories against SCOX. This is great for Novell stockholders but irrelevant to the wider Linux community.

Have you missed that Novell is spreading FUD not too unlike SCOX. It seems to me, we have two thieves, two mafia families, two drug cartels fighting for turf.

>> Forget that Novell employs the likes of Miguel De Icaza and pretty well Ximian as a whole.

Is that the same guy that thought OOXML was a technically superior product? You make me laugh.

I know Microsoft is all into the "hero" worship thing and "Miguel" is supposed to be one of these, one of these "heros" that we are to follow blindly. My guess is that Microsoft is projecting their own weaknesses (valuing sizzle over steak) onto the open source world. Sorry, but we do think, and Miguel is .. well, I'll let his talking talk for him. If you can think, I think you'll be laughing as I am. ..Not that I know who or what a Miguel is. I am only reacting to the name that gets thrown around. Haven't met the guy. Does he even know the things that are being attributed to his name? If "he" actually exists .. or is a "he".

>> Forget that Mono stands to be pretty useful as is almost entirely funded by Novell (due to them employing Ximian)

How confused you are... about the "useful" bit, but yes it is almost entirely funded by Novell.

One thing I'll mention here wrt to Mono and all the other garbage that tries to imitate Microsoft a few years and dollars short: interop is defined by the binaries Microsoft ships and not by the "standards" they pay ECMA to sponsor. Since you can't achieve interop if Microsoft has half a greedy brain cell awake in Redmond (the actual shipping spec is closed source software, remember), mono has no point in following the Redmond lead and might as well fork out on it's own, today. In fact, following on the heals of the ECMA spec is asking for extra unneeded patent troubles. I can almost assure you that the difference between the ECMA specs and the binaries Microsoft ships and updates online are going to be protected by a wall of patents, just in case anyone comes along and gets a bit too lucky reverse engineering their binaries.

The binaries of a monopolist determine the de facto spec, not the ECMA waste-of-time toilet paper writing.

>> Forget that Novell is one of the largest corporate contributors to Linux, right up there with Sun, IBM, and RedHat.

You first need to remove the garbage they contribute. Then you need to factor in the liabilities they are adding. I'm not sure what will be left. They are definitely making things worse for most other Linux companies, developers, and users.

>> Forget that the deal with Microsoft is primarily one for the sake of better interoperability, which is never and bad thing, and has the added bonus to protecting their customers, which actually encourages sane people to become Novell customers, given they're one of those rare companies that feels they owe something to their clients.

Interoperability with a closed source system is impossible except to the extent those controlling the source freeze development.

Red Hat interoperability: Reveal the source so we can all judge and overcome bugs and malware. We reveal our source. We won't trust except what you reveal. A tit for a tat.

Novell interoperability: We'll work behind closed doors, but you'll trust us because we think you are as stupid as we behave. We don't control Microsoft's source code, yet that's alright with us. Even though all that time and energy may be thrown into the garbage can with the tap of a keystroke on Microsoft's part, we're still willing to waste our time because, hey, they paid us $300 million to save our corporate rear ends. Hopefully, you'll smile too and waste your time with us and our code even though Microsoft is not paying you a dime and we will own all that code you contribute.

>> or perhaps Stallman had a sudden breakout of common sense, and realised how profoundly asinine it would be to impose new restrictions retroactively

Retroactively? How confused you are. The GPL takes effect the moment it's used. Stallman can add a new clause today. The fool would be Novell and Microsoft if they then decided to use GPLv3.1 from today onward.

What Stallman did (I'll help you out because I see you really need the hand) was to write in an exception so that Novell would be able to use the GPL3 in the future without their deal with Microsoft getting in the way for Microsoft and Novell.

Many think Stallman should not have added that exception, but I guess Stallman did not want to give the appearance to be targeting any specific company since the changes were conceived after the Novell deal. In fact, Stallman is targeting a type of abuse and not a company. This would be obvious to anyone that had actually read over the GPL3 and/or accurate notes on the GPL3.

>> But no, Novel is obviously pure evil. The most hilarious part is that you're shitting on them for cooperating, while cooperation is one of the cornerstones of open source.

They aren't pure evil. They are a liability to the Linux community, however. Some of the Novell people might be pretty "evil", but that's not for me to judge. The corp as a whole is working against the wider Linux community. Evil has little to do with that bottom line.

Cooperation? yeah... um, no. I think you are confused. I don't want anyone collaborating and cooperating with thugs.

A hallmark of open source is collaborating *in order to help* open source NOT in order to marginalize it.

>> A lot of people like to spout that the deal, particularily the idemnification clauses gives credit to Balmer's patent claims, the fact of the matter is that it's more likely than not that Samba (one of whose major contributors was on Novell's payroll) and Mono (which is chiefly financed by Novell) do indeed infringe on a few MS patents. Wine more than likely does as well, as do things like NTFS tools. But who needs to take any of that into consideration when it requires much less effort to stick one's fingers in one's ears and yell "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA".

The patent thing is not what I think is most important. Their collaboration and infestation of FOSS with Microsoft controlled garbagespecs is the bxxxx.

At bottom of this comment is a list of links that includes views/explanations on interop and Winports. No sense in repeating all of that here.

>> Fact is, even if the patent claims are bogus, Novell should get credit for not taking any chances on it. It shows they're a good company to do business with, since they're offering indemnification to their clients on the off chance that the product they're selling may result in patent trouble. That's the kind of company I want to be doing business with, because they actually give a shit about what happens to you, as a client, should you do business with them.

Red Hat indemnifies their clients. Yes they do. And they don't collaborate with Microsoft thugs. Rather they draw a line on the sand and challenge the thugs to step over it. Does Microsoft even have a patent leg to stand on? I don't see them crossing that line.

Meanwhile, Novell is collaborating with a thug who won't specify what patents are violated. Novell legitimizes baseless accusations. Novell hurts all other Linux vendors in the name of "their customers". Some might also call this hypocrisy when you consider that what Novell is doing makes it more likely that their customers will be locked in and put in a position to get less trustworthy software for a higher price (never mind the huge break-away liability costs that kick in when you decide to get off the Microsoft and Novell closed source treadmill).

But as I stated before. It's the rest of what Novell does that is most troublesome (to me anyway). The US patent system is broken. In the end, those Microsoft patents will likely get them nothing.. except a lot of scared deceived customers who will once again overspend on Microsoft and Novell software, thanks in part to the role Novell is playing.

>> They're going the extra mile and proving support beyond just the technical helpdesk kind of support, plus they're trying to make the IT world a better, friendlier place by working toward better interoperability.

You mean restricted and cross-my-fingers interoperability.

The ones demanding public unrestricted open source from Microsoft, as we provide ourselves, in order to collaborate as we collaborate, are Red Hat and the rest of us.

Novell is striking personal cross-my-finger deals with Microsoft. But then Novell accepted a bunch of money from the thug, so what do you expect?

Those within Novell that are actually more naive than thugs themselves, at least get a paycheck from Novell for that naivite.

>> I like the fact that Novell and MS are actually trying to make it so that it's easier to have and environment where one can easily mix and match Windows and SLES/D systems. Fact is, most sane people can appreciate the effort as well.

Again, it's Red Hat and the Linux folks that ones that haven't surrendered and kissed the thugs hiney. We provide all our material openly. You can verify that our open standards match our implementations (or else file a bug report.. or fix it yourself if you don't want to wait for a fix and it's crucial to your business).

Novell has decided to fake the good cop role of the good/bad cop routine with Microsoft. Novell is working on Microsoft's behalf to keep as many customers as possible stuck with Microsoft's closed source lock-in and away from Red Hat and others working openly.

Again, why anyone would blindly run their business on software under the control and sole oversight of another entity (forget even that it is one of the most unethical companies of all time) is beyond me.

Some more arguments in case you care [sorry, I tend to save other people's comments with which I agree but keep links only to my comments so most of what follows is my pov]:

FOSS vs. closed source wrt security: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-22-019-35-NW-RH-0000
Microsft Developer Rat Race, WinFOSS hurts real FOSS, and misc bits:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-03-005-35-NW-MS-0000 http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-21-022-35-OP-BZ-NV-0000 http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-21-022-35-OP-BZ-NV-0003
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/26/apache-caves/#comment-18063 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/31/politely-steal-from-linux/#comment-17619
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-01-028-35-NW-MS-RL-0000
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-01-028-35-NW-MS-RL-0001
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-01-028-35-NW-MS-RL-0002
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-01-028-35-NW-MS-RL-0004
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/26/apache-caves/#comment-17770
Control over the OS layer matters: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-15-017-35-OP-OO-0004
Microsoft prefers OOXML even if it can pervert ODF: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/31/politely-steal-from-linux/#comment-17623
Custom Linux distros are in our future:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-19-019-35-OP-MS-SW-0004
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-21-024-35-OP-DT-SW-0000
Give Novell and Microsoft a break: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/31/politely-steal-from-linux/#comment-17677
Linux market share matters to users:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-04-022-35-OS-0000
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-08-04-022-35-OS-0002

Anonymous said...

what it is with you fuckwits and your 4,000-word posts? Keep 'em short and to the point.

Jose_X said...

>> what it is with you fuckwits and your 4,000-word posts? Keep 'em short and to the point.

You are waving a white flag. Instead, why don't you tackle a few sentences at a time and then post.

Anonymous said...

Are you completely retarded? There is no downside to having access to the source code of any program you may run. Think before you say something so stupid.

You're falling into the classic Linux user assumption that everyone is fluent in C++ and will dig through source code for hours to fix a problem.

The vast majority of users aren't programmers. They don't care that they can look at the code, nor do they want to learn what it all means. They just want to get their stuff done.

This assumption that every user is also a developer is the community's Achilles heel. They don't want users, they want developers. Well, there's probably a thousand of the former to one of the latter.

Open source doesn't make any difference for someone who just wants their computer to work.

Windows works for you.
Mac OS X works for you.
You work for Linux.

Anonymous said...

On the desktop, Linux is plenty good for many unsophisticated (and sophisticated) users. Those most against Linux on the desktop (besides Microsoft employees) are Windows power users that don't want to have to learn new tricks.

Don't give me that bullshit. I can't even stand browsing the web on a Linux system because fonts SUCK. That's why people keep paying for Windows... or buy a Mac.

Anonymous said...

@jose_x: "You are waving a white flag. Instead, why don't you tackle a few sentences at a time and then post."

You are quite the bloviator. Here's a clue: Learn brevity. You don't need to write a fucking novel to get your point across, maricon. A few sentences will do.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous: "A technically inferior product is not made into a better quality solution sheerly on the basis of having access to source. A solution is of better quality purely on the basis that it is overall a higher quality solution."

That's exactly my point, and it seems to have gone completely over jose_x's head. I don't want source code to a shitty solution. FOSS projects have proven time after time that their engineering practices are no better than their proprietary counterparts and, every few releases, we see these perennial efforts to rewrite the fucking things because they're too unwieldy and resistent to change -- or they become abandonware. Since we're talking potentially about thousands of lines of source code, I can choose between wasting my time trying to get the crap to work -- no guarantees there -- or I can go with a solution that works TODAY.

Honestly, what douchebags like jose_x don't understand is that, while they complain about putting "trust" in closed source companies like Microsoft, freetards don't like to think about or mention that customers will stop buying Microsoft's stuff if they don't deliver what they want. Ergo, they ALWAYS have the option of going the open source route -- that option is never foreclosed, even if they're using closed source today -- so there's really no reason to switch unless you're really unhappy with what you have. This whole concept of "vendor-lockin" is bullshit. If I can switch TODAY, I can switch TOMORROW. So, honestly, they can go fuck themselves, if they think that they can fool businesses with such specious illogic.

Jose_X said...

>> You're falling into the classic Linux user assumption that everyone is fluent in C++ and will dig through source code for hours to fix a problem. .. Well, there's probably a thousand of the former to one of the latter.

I don't thinks so, no. First, HTML is a much higher level of coding than C++. Visual tools further simplify things. The problem with closed source is that you reach a limit. The number of people that like to go beyond whatever limit is presented is much greater than the 1000 to 1 you mentioned.

You are also making the classic mistake of thinking that each user has to understand the code in order to benefit from its openness. One person in 1000 fixes something and the rest benefit. The point is that 6 billion people divided by 1000 equals 6 million developers, which a lot more developers than any company has. Those 6 million will include people in the shop down the street that can do custom work for you for pay. Those 6 million work on behalf of the other 6 billion.

[To go slightly off topic for a bit...]

Look, many developers today do customization work. These though can't participate in the process fully when a huge amount of their tools are closed.

This is why Microsoft is and has always been walking over third party closed source developers. The third party devs can't integrate and design and adjust to the code of the surrounding software on which they depend (with which they interact) because Microsoft doesn't give them access.

For a few decades now, Microsoft has been telling devs that closing the source is the only way to make money. Meanwhile, they have been laughing at those doing it, since the main beneficiary has been Microsoft as owner of the growing monopoly platforms on which everyone else depends and with which Microsoft will forever exclusively be able to integrate. Microsoft just picks off these lone clusters of independent coders, frequently without much of a court fight.

Of course, besides integration, there is the issue of shifty, badly-defined, and badly-implemented interfaces.

Third party devs, btw, included those pushing out shrink-wrapped software as well as in-house devs, consultants, and other contractors.

It's a sad joke on developers, developers, developers, developers.

It's a rat race, a treadmill, and a money pit investing in Microsoft software. For groups having access to developers (even through outsourcing), the savings of Linux and open source are to the pocketbook and to your sanity. There is continuity as a Linux dev (despite the higher initial bar) that is unheard of in the Microsoft world. It's actually a pleasure to be a Linux FOSS dev.

It also explains why those devs hooked on Microsoft are less skilled and don't care as much for quality work as those using Linux and FOSS. It's impossible to keep up with so many constant changes or to understand through so much opacity.

I call it disrespect and deception. And there are more reasons beyond these why many dislike Gates and company.

>> Open source doesn't make any difference for someone who just wants their computer to work.

Couldn't tell you how many people disagree.

Besides what was just mentioned at the top (and that could be the most important reason(s)), users love to share their software with others. You can with open source, you can't with proprietary licenses like the ones Microsoft uses. In fact, sometimes users want to change a few easy things and then share. This requires open source all the way. Linux LiveCD distros and included software will fill this need as these mature and as more become aware of them (and as the customization tools improve).

As for the end user's ability to hack at code/config files etc for themselves: Closed source evangelists insult their customers all the time. They call them stupid (in less direct words) and claim they couldn't do much with the source even if they tried. The trick here is that since the customer doesn't see the code or doesn't understand the configuration files, it's hard for them to refute that.

Coding can be difficult, but not always. With open code, others can break it down for you and make it terribly easy (of course they can also solve your problem for you). This hasn't happened nearly as much as it should yet for Jack/Jill, but it will.

Finally, I won't go into much detail on privacy issues (Big Brother) nor into having your control limited by Microsoft (monopolist) instead of by what the vendor in the yellow pages can do for you with open source (free market competition) because this has already been mentioned here a ton in earlier posts as well as in hyperlinked reading.

julian67 said...

"I can't even stand browsing the web on a Linux system because fonts SUCK. "

You know they're getting desperate when you see this. Surely it's embarrassing to come out with this crap?

You can install whatever fonts you prefer. The MS True Type Fonts are freely available (and hosted on sourceforge), as are Red Hat's Liberation Fonts which are much the same. You can toggle ant-aliasing, hinting and sub-pixel hinting, dpi.

If you can't make your browser or system fonts look exactly how you like it's because you're as dumb as a rock.

Jose_X said...

[Anon A]
>> Don't give me that bullshit. I can't even stand browsing the web on a Linux system because fonts SUCK. That's why people keep paying for Windows... or buy a Mac.

Wake up. There is a lot more to usability and getting work done than a dash of polish here or there. Most people are not buying Windows for those reasons. Most people don't even know they are paying for Windows and that a Linux system exists that can many times handle their needs and surpass their expectations (but not always.. virtual machines on Linux are the future.. so you can run any platform at will).

Also, the fonts are not that different in most cases. What distro are you using as a reference?

Some people really should have Windows XP alongside Linux, but as I said, there is a lot more to using a computer than a pixel shade off here or there.

Hey, why don't you post images of your Linux and your Windows web browsing experiences? That way the reader can decide for themselves?

[Anon B]
>> You are quite the bloviator. Here's a clue: Learn brevity. You don't need to write a fucking novel to get your point across, maricon. A few sentences will do.

So did I get my point(s) across? We'll see.

julian67 said...

MS TTF Debian Gnome

http://www.debianadmin.com/images/fonts/4.png


Liberation Fonts Gnome

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll68/asmodeanv/fonts111.png

Anonymous said...

@Jose_X

I'm curious, is it possible for you to distill your thoughts down into relevant, concise points or does your warped, fundamentalist brain not allow that?

Tron said...



You are also making the classic mistake of thinking that each user has to understand the code in order to benefit from its openness. One person in 1000 fixes something and the rest benefit. The point is that 6 billion people divided by 1000 equals 6 million developers, which a lot more developers than any company has. Those 6 million will include people in the shop down the street that can do custom work for you for pay. Those 6 million work on behalf of the other 6 billion.


What crap. All this does is produce 200 different window managers and 50 different ways to programming them and 100 different ways to package your software creating MASS ... i repeat MASS confusion among very average customers. Nobody gives a shit about all the customizations and whatnot you talk.

This is assuming all the changes made by the developers are actually useful. The majority of them are not.


FOSS development is chaotic as hell, the only projects that have actually worked such as the gnu tools, kernel, mozilla, etc are always the ones shoved in peoples faces. The VAST VAST VAST majority of FOSS projects are HORRIBLE CRAPware that go unmentioned. Well I'd like to mention them.

Tron said...


Most people don't even know they are paying for Windows and that a Linux system exists that can many times handle their needs and surpass their expectations


So let get this straight. After pumping in $1 billion in linux, you're telling me most people have never even heard about linux?


WOW. GREAT. BRAVO. might as well packup and leave ...


Its going to be funny to see the iphone overtake linux in online browser share soon.

Tron said...


If you can't make your browser or system fonts look exactly how you like it's because you're as dumb as a rock.


No, its how the entire world expects them to look like. Business bend over backwards to please each and every customer to penetrate a market.

Anonymous said...

One person in 1000 fixes something and the rest benefit.
It's 'the many eyes make all bugs shallow' all over again.
And yet there are years old bugs in FOSS software...

..[Microsoft this, Microsoft that] ..
And yet, there's an ecosystem based on MS OS and other software, where you can find a range of FOSS, free, cheap, mid-priced and expensive applications for just about any job and purpose. Unlike Linux.

It also explains why those devs hooked on Microsoft are less skilled and don't care as much for quality work as those using Linux and FOSS.
It's mostly crap. But even if it was true, at least they care about their users, unlike GIMP, KDE and many other developers in FOSS world.

Anonymous said...

@Jose_X

Couldn't tell you how many people disagree.

You could. It's probably much less than total number of Linux users, which is about 1%.
So, I guess it's about 100 or so.

Jose_X said...

>> That's exactly my point, and it seems to have gone completely over jose_x's head. I don't want source code to a shitty solution. FOSS projects have proven time after time that their engineering practices are no better than their proprietary counterparts....

Not sure who came up with that proof you speak of. There are good and bad project of both types. It would be interesting if you actually tried to back up your talk.

Actually, are we talking about the user POV or the developer POV? You speak of engineering practices (dev), but a lot of what you write hints you are talking about end users.

The nutshell is that FOSS adds synergies to the development process. It takes whatever you start off with and makes it better. [Mostly because it allows more stakeholders to take as active a part as necessary. It also brings in more experts from the many that might be independently working on similar solutions. And you get cross-fertilization of ideas and code as devs move around projects.]

Software is taking the same path science took centuries back. It went from closed secretive magic (buggy) spells into what transformed the world into the society we live in today.

Again, not all FOSS projects are superior, but a mediocre group of developers becomes better when they open source. A very talented group of developers becomes better when they open source.

If you are a dev, I think you would understand. If you aren't and are judging by the end product that is Windows vs. your attempt at Linux, then I think there are a lot of issues involved that have nothing to do with open and closed source.

Keep paying attention though. Linux is coming. It takes a bit of time when you are going up against the cartel that is Microsoft and its partners. That's AN AWFUL LOT of money and leverage working directly against you, but Microsoft's path is unsustainable. Also, as FOSS matures, we learn more of the secrets to success. Yes, we are like a young company in many ways, except we can't be put out of business.

If you don't understand some of the reasons why Windows positioning in the market today is not just about open vs closed source development, the conversations on this web page won't resolve it for you in one shot.

>> and, every few releases, we see these perennial efforts to rewrite the fucking things because they're too unwieldy and resistant to change -- or they become abandonware. Since we're talking potentially about thousands of lines of source code, I can choose between wasting my time trying to get the crap to work -- no guarantees there -- or I can go with a solution that works TODAY.

You are confused. You keep repeating talking point myths I've heard elsewhere. The "unwieldy" is the crud that DOESN'T get maintained and rewritten periodically as necessary. And not all FOSS gets rewritten frequently either, in part, because it gets done right once.. to last for a while.

I can see you are not a developer, but are parroting. The first thing Mozilla did when they left AOL as Netscape was to undertake a cleaning up that took 2 years' time. A few years later, they were kicking Microsoft's buttocks despite having very limited resources, a much smaller user base, and a much smaller developer-partner base.

This pattern gets repeated over and over. Companies that decide to go open spend time cleaning up and re-architechting in some cases. Apple even dumped their mess and simply piggy-backed on BSD Unix. How's that for the ultimate in complement. They abandoned their tar pit, and jumped on the back of open source. Today, many still worship by Job's alter (perhaps more than did yesterday, come to think of it).

Look at Google. They keep their secret sauces but the majority of the software running their systems was created by others as open source.

I think some people are going to be in for a great disappointment when Microsoft comes crashing down from the alter they have erected for them.

And you do sound a bit like Microsoft (probably without realizing you do), as they tend to attack whatever it is they don't do even if it makes no sense. I don't think it's denial. I think it is calculated deception.

>> Honestly, what douchebags like jose_x don't understand is that, while they complain about putting "trust" in closed source companies like Microsoft, freetards don't like to think about or mention that customers will stop buying Microsoft's stuff if they don't deliver what they want.

Some are in the boat you describe. Part of the problem is that the Microsoft cartel has made it very difficult for FOSS to take ground in many ways.

Microsoft's antitrust antics are old news. It's nice to know Anonymous doesn't follow along since this makes everyone's job here a little more difficult.

An ecosystem is complex and has many parts. When people talk about lock-in they might refer to various things. The bottom line though is that it's difficult to gain traction against the Microsoft ecosystem that exists and has existed over the years. [This is why antitrust laws were developed, but the wheels of justice do turn slow and are fickle.] And traction brings in dollars, developers, and greater end user feedback.

When enough traction is built and the tide turns, Microsoft will go poof.

>> Ergo, they ALWAYS have the option of going the open source route -- that option is never foreclosed, even if they're using closed source today -- so there's really no reason to switch unless you're really unhappy with what you have. This whole concept of "vendor-lockin" is bullshit. If I can switch TODAY, I can switch TOMORROW. So, honestly, they can go fuck themselves, if they think that they can fool businesses with such specious illogic.

Migration is a process. The more you code from one set of closed technologies, the more you have that you must recode or abandon if you want to migrate. The key isn't changing today or tomorrow. Any change requires time and planning. The key is when you start migrating, what tools will be there to help you. If you keep up with Vista and the latest MS closed wares, then your migration path won't simplify for years into the future. If you stay put, then you will have a much easier time changing in a few years time or even today.

Most people saving lots of money today and taking control of their expenses and risks started the migration process towards Linux from technology that is today many years old and is much better understood by third parties.

Glad you pointed that out. The lock-in is a function of time and may wear off over time. This is why Microsoft changes technologies so frequently.

However, Vista makes it easier for Microsoft to hide what they are doing. They may however not yet be at a point where they can rest all that much.

And let's not forget that over time, Microsoft has taken over more and more spaces. This means that the integration has become tighter and tighter (but all closed source) as other application vendors have been displaced by Microsoft.

Look, I'm not here to drag *you* specifically, kicking and screaming. I do however believe in growing Linux market share as referenced in one of the links above (the link is cued by a little blurb.. within the long list of 15 or so links in an earlier reply). That is why I spend time here posting when I would rather be doing something else.

Mr. Tent Trash said...

wow

Anonymous said...

@tron

Yeah, it's going to be funny to see how M$ has 0 possibilities in the intelligent phone / handheld market and your loved desktop becomes less important each day as well.

Anonymous said...

@jose_x

For the love of humanity, learn to write concisely. Typical freetard jagbag.

Tron said...

@jose_x

BTW. Google has not yet delivered a _SINGLE_ enterprise quality application yet. Except when they want to sell you shit. Buy all the Phd's in the world and put them in a cage creating algorithms to sell people crap..


Gmail? Google office? These are _toys_ for enterprise market.

Calendar? Please..


One of The worlds most robust suite of servers, IBM AIX is proprietary. So don't even go there. Linux is nowhere near it in terms of uptime. Even Solaris is hands down better than linux. Only now have they made it open source. The majority of the development was closed.


You are either 100% stupid or 100% lying if you believe only open source can produce good code.

Tron said...


Yeah, it's going to be funny to see how M$ has 0 possibilities in the intelligent phone / handheld market and your loved desktop becomes less important each day as well.


aww.. did I hurt your little freetard feelings?

Even apple _had_ to embrace Microsoft technologies (exchange) to be successful. hehe.

2008 Year of the linux desktop? LOL.

Tron said...


[..]into having your control limited by Microsoft (monopolist) instead of by what the vendor in the yellow pages can do for you with open source (free market competition) because [...]


I generally skip over the shit bomb that jose_x posts but I cant believe this was missed.


Are you fucking kidding me? Equating Open source with free market? Do you even know what a free market is? HOLY FUCKING JEEBUS.

Anonymous said...

@tron

I use both windows and linux, and sometimes Mac.

I will never understand the people that licks Corporations balls for free and publicly in the internet... it's not very rational.

Jose_X said...

>> What crap. All this does is produce 200 different window managers and 50 different ways to programming them and 100 different ways to package your software creating MASS ... i repeat MASS confusion among very average customers. Nobody gives a shit about all the customizations and whatnot you talk.

Wrong. Not all of those window managers pull in the same number of resources as the main ones. Nor were all of these developed independently.

You have much to learn.

As for the customizations, people pay others to customize all the time. You can make great money that way.

I didn't say Linux development today was easier than Windows development for someone starting off. The payoff over the long run, however, is greater, and there is greater leveraging of all our resources. On Windows, the same wheels really do get reinvented all the time INDEPENDENTLY. That is wasted time and effort. Think OOP but applied to a large community.

Linux is like a young company, but we are learning and growing. You could say we are forever young, and you might be right.

>> This is assuming all the changes made by the developers are actually useful. The majority of them are not.

This is more true when development is done completely separately, as is done in the closed source world.

I don't think you have given FOSS a try. FOSS is not perfect. What it is is better.

>> FOSS development is chaotic as hell, the only projects that have actually worked such as the gnu tools, kernel, mozilla, etc are always the ones shoved in peoples faces. The VAST VAST VAST majority of FOSS projects are HORRIBLE CRAPware that go unmentioned. Well I'd like to mention them.

Then go ahead.

You can't advance without projects that die in the vine; however, a typical modern linux distribution has many components spanning many projects that are in active use if not in active development.

I think you have no idea what is available, and you people fighting FOSS are not making sense.. except in the 1984 "War is Peace" way.

>> Its going to be funny to see the iphone overtake linux in online browser share soon.

Don't tell me you actually think only 1% of users use Linux do you? This number popped up within the last year. It's based on web metrics I believe. I would not be surprised to learn the stats come from something as silly as the string given by browsers and based on websites that are hostile to non-IE/Windows clients to begin with.

At the time I first saw this 1% number, I checked out the link of the company making the claim and they started doing their surveys last summer/autumn I think it was. Their numbers were foolish to begin with, but at least they are on the mark that Linux use has been growing.

Fact is that without an open methodology, anyone can claim whatever they want. This is what you people don't seem to understand. The days of closed source alchemy are going to be eclipsed by open science. You have to put up or shut up in science.

I see no code from Microsoft. They will lose their monopolies/cartels if they open up.

>> > If you can't make your browser or system fonts look exactly how you like it's because you're as dumb as a rock.
>> No, its how the entire world expects them to look like. Business bend over backwards to please each and every customer to penetrate a market.

I don't think the guy talking about rocks is a business exec. Surely, Canonical and Red Hat think much as you do and do work to please their customers. [FWIW, Red Hat actually commissioned and released to the community a bunch of open fonts not long ago.]

Don't judge Linux businesses generally by what some frustrated Linux using posters (if they are such) say in the heat of battle on a blog.

>> And yet there are years old bugs in FOSS software...

I will probably have to repeat myself a few times: FOSS is not perfection. Nothing is. Bugs exist everywhere. Why do you people not look in the mirror? FOSS is not perfect, but it essentially offers a better development model than closed source development (obviously there is a learning curve and a community must be cultivated, though even one extra pair of eyeballs improves the situation).

Perhaps what you people want to argue is that closed source offers a better *business* model.. well, here too I would disagree, at least in some cases.

>> And yet, there's an ecosystem based on MS OS and other software, where you can find a range of FOSS, free, cheap, mid-priced and expensive applications for just about any job and purpose. Unlike Linux.

You are confused if you think companies are not making money selling closed source software on Linux. I won't advertize for them, but you should look around.

Yes, the Linux ecosystem is smaller than the MS one. Who has ever denied that? but it seems people are arguing as if Linux advocates have stated this.

On the contrary, the Linux ecosystem, despite it's size, is giving Microsoft fits and keeps getting healthier and healthier as more are joining up.

Expect more numbers game from Microsoft until their bitter end. Games like the web server market share deal they pulled with godaddy, the 1% that keeps getting parroted, the ridiculously slanted TOC reports, some of the financial report shenanigans they have pulled off in the past, etc. Microsoft lives on deception. They win the hearts and minds (illusions) first, from which then follows market share, but they can't deceive everyone forever. By now FOSS and Linux should have died. Aw, poo baby softies.

>> > Couldn't tell you how many people disagree.
>> You could. It's probably much less than total number of Linux users, which is about 1%.
>> So, I guess it's about 100 or so.

Well, how many people work at the NYSE or Google? Do I have a hundred yet?

One, two ....

There are probably less than a handful of people total working at these two organizations combined.

And Linux users number to less than 1%.

How could I have doubted you, sorry.

Tron said...


I use both windows and linux, and sometimes Mac.

I will never understand the people that licks Corporations balls for free and publicly in the internet... it's not very rational.


I get paid to work with MS technologies. So I'm a whore..


You do it without getting paid. Guess you're a stupid whore ?

Anonymous said...

@tron

I was just commenting on this blog, without licking anyone balls, and without trolling to favor my interests.

I get paid to work with MS technologies. So I'm a whore..

Ok. you said it, nothing to add.

Tron said...


Ok. you said it, nothing to add.

I was just repeating what you said. Perhaps your attention span is lower than I predicted for a stupid whore.

julian67 said...

He might be a stupid whore but you're a no good, lousy, syphilitic whore because you can't even give it away for free, ha ha.

Tron said...


He might be a stupid whore but you're a no good, lousy, syphilitic whore because you can't even give it away for free, ha ha.

I just said I get paid. Very well.
Got some ADD there from all the FOSS cock?


I guess you're a stupid whore too like the other stupid whores who also give it away for free. And nobody wants them. JUST LIKE LINUX.

QED

:)

julian67 said...

Wintards love talking about my cock.

Tron said...

I was talking about your ass. Since your a whore, you don't get to use your cock. Besides nobody wants to risk it, even for a free one.

Anonymous said...

lol.. freetard julian is getting served again and again...

Jose_X said...

>> BTW. Google has not yet delivered a _SINGLE_ enterprise quality application yet.

No argument there (though I don't keep up with Google apps so I couldn't say), but you are aware of their market cap and success in various businesses? It would not have happened without Linux and FOSS.

>> One of The worlds most robust suite of servers, IBM AIX is proprietary. So don't even go there. Linux is nowhere near it in terms of uptime. Even Solaris is hands down better than linux. Only now have they made it open source. The majority of the development was closed.

I don't see your point.

I have not stated that at time T every open source project is better than every closed source project. I specifically stated this wasn't the case in fact. [Maybe my damn long postings are out of sync with yours]. Open sourcing improves upon traditional closed source development.

AIX runs on special hardware so this complicates the matter since it's AIX plus IBM hardware vs. Linux plus IBM hardware. IBM also has extensive history with creating fault tolerant machines. In any case, see previous paragraph.

As for Solaris, why would Sun go open source if it would not help them? Do you think they are trading in costs for quality? That is a theory I suppose. Maybe Staroffice would be better today if they had used the money they spent on Mysql to instead higher more devs and keep Staroffice closed source. I guess we'll never know, and we'll thus never agree.

>> You are either 100% stupid or 100% lying if you believe only open source can produce good code.

I stated no such thing. Also, there are many contexts. After all, how much can you do to a Hello World example? I think you can manage that bug free while keeping it closed source... or at least if we ignore the OS and libraries on which this Hello World example will run.

Anyway, try rereading what I wrote and perhaps quote it. If I made a mistake, I'll try and recognize the mistake. My position continues to be that the user of software (including other devs) benefit greater when they have access to all the source code they need. I also stated that open sourcing will effectively improve what is a traditionally closed source development process, except in odd cases, at least to the extent the open sourcing can be sustained.

Microsoft will lose money if they open source their "jewels".

One thing to keep in mind as you launch the next series of attacks on how open source is not supportable because of fewer funds, is that in fact it has resulted in better software in many cases or in software that is catching up. Costs are born by the community at large. FOSS has lead to improvements in closed source products that have been able to leverage the FOSS gains (eg, Staroffice and even MSware). However, as already stated, a small weak FOSS community around a particular project may mean that that particular FOSS project won't excel. It may not even be intended to excel as it may have already led to a different project (possibly a fork) gaining from the experiences of the weak project.

If financially sustainable (see the Mythical Man-Month for why you can't just throw more and more people or money at software problems and get scalable results back), then FOSS has shown that it can beat out more mature closed-source products in many cases. It's very cost effective to society/users. And users definitely benefit by having access to source code. Many new businesses have only been possible because of access to all sorts of source code. Those relying on MS have lost out to those innovating on top of Linux and FOSS.

It should also be clear that software can do anything, much of it without you noticing it if it's closed source.

>> I generally skip over the shit bomb that jose_x posts but I cant believe this was missed.

That's a good strategy when you can't come up with a reply to meet your end goals. If it keeps you from crying, go ahead and keep "ignoring" my posts.

>> Are you fucking kidding me? Equating Open source with free market? Do you even know what a free market is? HOLY FUCKING JEEBUS.

Tell you what. You tell me in what way open source is incompatible with a free market. I'll help you out with a sentence from wikipedia:
>>In other words, a free market economy is "an economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions."

Technically, a market that is controlled through monopoly power might be able to fall within the free market definition (so my inference might have been technically wrong, at least according to what I just read on wikipedia), but I think it doesn't take an Einstein to tell you that that a market with more choices and options is "freer" than one with limited choices and options, whether the control is being exerted by a government (not a free market) or instead by a monopolist (possibly technically a free market). The consumers see the same end result either way: more shoddiness.

Am I clear? and can you please explain in what way open source is incompatible with the meaning of a free market?

Anonymous said...

@julian67 loves hot women

julian67 said...

tron you like men's asses? Thought so. Reading the posts here at LH it's interesting how many of you wintards are obsessed with mano a mano ass fun. But for all that you've got no balls. LH even continually trolls his own blog as anonymous.

Only thing you little boys ever sucked or fucked is your mommy.

Jose_X said...

>> I guess you're a stupid whore too like the other stupid whores who also give it away for free. And nobody wants them. JUST LIKE LINUX.

So that's why you don't understand FOSS!

You see, you give away a tiny amount (if you want), but you have available at no charge the sum of all the tiny amounts made by everyone else.

It's quite a deal. Many business people and devs have thought the FOSS people were crazy until they realized what was actually going on.

It's mostly about self-benefit.

IBM donates because it helps them against Microsoft and others and helps add value to their internally developed investments like with Java or ODF. Not to mention it helps hardware sales when the software works better with it. It also improves their brand overall, also leading to servicing sales. Oh, and it makes it easier for them to grow communities around future endeavors. Um, and I almost forgot, having their developers actually dive into FOSS code that they later sell does mean that their devs will better be able to service the contracts (Red Hat lives off this).

Ditto for Google, etc.

And many individuals or users contribute because it also makes strategic sense for keeping their long-term code management costs down.

.. or simply to scratch an itch.. which, if shared back, might be for public recognition or simply as a tiny thank-you for all that is received.

We all give for different reasons..

But it's the taking that I think most of us really care about.

Good-bye Microsoft.. and I haven't looked back.

Anonymous said...

@tron

Why every discussion on this blog ends up at yomama level with screaming monkeys ?

Tron said...


Reading the posts here at LH it's interesting how many of you wintards are obsessed with mano a mano ass fun.

Why is it interesting? Is the stupid whore in you acting up again?

Tron said...


Why every discussion on this blog ends up at yomama level with screaming monkeys ?

Beats me,... I'm not here for every discussion.


Since you obviously are, maybe you can figure it out.

Anonymous said...

How do people operate a computer without knowing how it works? The same way they operate their car, ATM machine, stereo, blender, toaster, microwave, refrigerator, DVD player, camera, electric shaver, and the millions of other proprietary and "closed" goods that exist in this world. Do you refuse to eat at restaurants that will not disclose their secret sauce? You don't know exactly what you're eating. It could be anything; it could even be bleach.

Anonymous said...

You know they're getting desperate when you see this. Surely it's embarrassing to come out with this crap?

You can install whatever fonts you prefer


That's the fucking point, nuttard. Even something as basic having decent fonts require work in Linux. Which means it's not usable even for browsing the fucking web. People want their computers to work for them, not the other way around.

You will never learn. Good luck changing the world.

julian67 said...

"That's the fucking point, nuttard. Even something as basic having decent fonts require work in Linux"

No it doesn't require work.

Most distros ship with Red Hat's Liberation fonts which are indistinguishable from MS TTF.

MS TTF fonts are not fully legally distributable but they are freely available to private individuals and easily obtained. While most distros don't ship them (a few do I believe) they all seem to include a ms-ttf-download tool. Click click it's done. Some distro's installers ask you during install if you want MS fonts, check the yes box and they're ready on your first log on.

If you have a Windows license you're entitled to simply copy the fonts over from your Windows install.

But take heart and don't let the fact that you're an ignorant know-nothing moron stop you from offering your entirely worthless opinion.

You're a fucking pinhead.

Anonymous said...

Don't be a fool. SCOX had nothing and IBM is/was going to wipe the floor with them.

That remains to be seen. IBM was going to mop up solely on the basis that they had and free-for-all lisence for AIX, from AT&T, which essentially grandfather clauses it so that SCO wouldn't be able to retroactively impose new terms.

However, the case wasn't about about AIX directly. Since IBM's lisence from AT&T covered AIX, they were still precluded from including code from AIX into anything else, moreover they're precluded from ever opening that code.

It's well known that all non-BSD Unixes descend from System V, to imply that the case was purely bogus is a dangeroud claim to make, especially in regard to a System V derrived OS.

Novell made all of that moot by provoing ownership of System V belonged to them. Essentially, Novell made it that SCO cannot litigate even if it turns out that there actually IS System V code in Linux. Fact of the matter is that if people forget that Novell, after this, could have easily turned around and sued SCO into oblivion over Caldera Linux, and it would have been entirely within their rights to do so.

However, they did not. This doesn't mean that there's no system v derrived code in Linux, it only means that Novell has no interest in setting the precedent (since their business is centered on Linux) They also promised not to sue over System V, which they didn't need to do.

Don't think for a second that if Novell really wanted to fuck over the Linux community, they don't have the means to burry Linux. They do.

Is that the same guy that thought OOXML was a technically superior product? You make me laugh.

As I recall he merely stated that it was a solid spec, which is fine.

If you want comedy, look at the Linux community crying bl;oody muyrder over it, liebeling him over
it, essentially on no other basis that the firm belief that anything out of Microsoft must, invariably be evil, worthless and technically inferior.

I know Microsoft is all into the "hero" worship thing and "Miguel" is supposed to be one of these, one of these "heros" that we are to follow blindly.

Who said anything about hero worship and blind following? All Miguel is is a programmer, a fairly well-known one, and a fairly skilled one, he's largely responsible for Gnome, evolution and Mono, which grants him at least some level of regognition and credibility. But that doesn't set him apart from anyone else, he's merely expressing a personal opinion based on the perspective of someone responsible for three of the more top-tier FOSS projects.

And to state that Microsoft is all about blind hero worship? Have you even read the rhetoric the FSF spouts out on a daily basis? How about the quasi religious icon status granted to RMS?

My guess is that Microsoft is projecting their own weaknesses (valuing sizzle over steak) onto the open source world.

Says the one spouting inane, irrelevent rhetoric. Riiight.

If you can think, I think you'll be laughing as I am. ..Not that

Essentially you're saying that if I don't share you're opinion, mine is somehow inherently flawed. You're correct that I'm laughing though, at you, that is. But you can't win 'em all, as they say.

I know who or what a Miguel is. I am only reacting to the name that gets thrown around. Haven't met the guy. Does he even know the things that are being attributed to his name? If "he" actually exists .. or is a "he".

So you're saying that your little rant about him is essentially, baseless, unfoundesd groupthink. Congradulations. I doubt he cares much about what random freetards think of him, he's got something they don't: Credibility.

How confused you are... about the "useful" bit, but yes it is almost entirely funded by Novell.

Having an cross-platform implimentation on the .NET framework has its uses. Maybe you're just of the mind (or out of your mind, as the case may be) that anything and everything out of Redmond is inherently useless. It's a pretty stupid mindset to have, the reasons for which should be obvious.

One thing I'll mention here wrt to Mono and all the other garbage that tries to imitate Microsoft a few years and dollars short:

So you'd rather .NET continue to gain steam on its native platform, and don't kid yourself, it is gaining steam, and it's quite a nice framework to work with, with no cross platform implimentation?
All this complaining about a hypothetical vendor lock-in, and yet you argue that such an effort to prevent such is a mistake. Cute. Fail.

The hilarious part is your fear-mongering over a wall of patents when one of the larger points of the deal was Microsoft providing Novell with patent idemnification. That's why Mono can potentially be of importance (and why it is important that it is funded by Novell), they don't have to worry about being bitchslapped into oblivion by patents.

You first need to remove the garbage they contribute. Then you need to factor in the liabilities they are adding. I'm not sure what will be left. They are definitely making things worse for most other Linux companies, developers, and users.

The other companies were offered the same kind of deal, it's not Novell's fault they refused. Fact is the deal opens a lot of doors for Novell in terms of where they can go with development (and interoperability) that were previously closed to them, and which will remain closed to other Linux companies. That's of no fault of Novell's. That's what they get for opting to be zealous, rather than pragmatic.

Interoperability with a closed source system is impossible except to the extent those controlling the source freeze development.

Obviously. With the added bonus that Novell is now free to reverse engineer the protocols in question without fear of litigation. Further, thanks to the EU, the specification are provided freely, extra bonus.

Red Hat interoperability: Reveal the source so we can all judge and overcome bugs and malware. We reveal our source. We won't trust except what you reveal. A tit for a tat.

On could argue that as such, Red Hat isn't really interested in interoperability. You said yourself, the (pseudo) monopoly defines the standard. You want to play with the Monopoly, you play by their rules. It's fine and dandy to say show us the code or we aren't interested, all the while knowing full well that they'll never open up their crown jewels. All it is is a means to attempt to sucker MS into opening up thinly veiled as pushing for interop.

Novell interoperability: We'll work behind closed doors, but you'll trust us because we think you are as stupid as we behave.

Except Novel puts their source code out for all to see just like Red Hat does. Except given that they're actually interested in interop, will work with MS rather than goad them. Welcome to the real world, where you have to actually give a little so you can recieve a little.

Cooperation? yeah... um, no. I think you are confused. I don't want anyone collaborating and cooperating with thugs.

So you don't want cooperation. That's fine, just don't expect to get very far.

A hallmark of open source is collaborating *in order to help* open source NOT in order to marginalize it.

True cooperation and interoperability marginalizes both sides, be it open or closed, MS or anyone else. The idea of interop is that it matters less what you use, because they all play well together, not to glorify one or the other.

Your idea of interop is to glorify open source over closed. You're not interested in interop. You just want to proliferate oss.

Red Hat indemnifies their clients. Yes they do. And they don't collaborate with Microsoft thugs. Rather they draw a line on the sand and challenge the thugs to step over it. Does Microsoft even have a patent leg to stand on? I don't see them crossing that line.

I think you overestimate Red Hat and underestimate Microsoft. Truth is Red Hat is insignificant, what they have going for them is that they don't have the capital to make litigation worthwhile.

Retroactively? How confused you are. The GPL takes effect the moment it's used. Stallman can add a new clause today. The fool would be Novell and Microsoft if they then decided to use GPLv3.1 from today onward.

Wrong. Code that was GPL2 can be forked from a time before it was made GPL3, and maintained under the previous lisencing terms.

If I have a GPL2 project, I have to opt in for it to be bound by the new terms presented in GPL3.

Fact is imposing GPL3 terms on GPL code is retroactive, since the code existed under a previous license prior to the inception of the GPL3.

Novel is free to ignore any new terms imposed by Stallman, and continue to use GPL2 code. The only tradeoff is that if the upstream goes GPL3, Novel would have had to fork and maintain a new branch themselves.

What Stallman did (I'll help you out because I see you really need the hand) was to write in an exception so that Novell would be able to use the GPL3 in the future without their deal with Microsoft getting in the way for Microsoft and Novell.

And I had summed that up by saying that the Novel/MS deal was grandfathered into GPL3. Reading comprehension: acquire it.

Many think Stallman should not have added that exception, but I guess Stallman did not want to give the appearance to be targeting any specific company

Yet the clauses were called "anti-tivoization" clauses. IIRC Tivo has not been grandfathered into the GPL3. In fact RMS himself uses the term "tivoization", and there's wording added the the fouth draft of GPL aimed specifically to force MS to extend its patent idemnifacation to all users of GPL3 software (erxcept it fails, because MS isn't bound by the terms of the GPL because they don't distribute GPL code, Novell does), so please, spare me your uniformed rubbish about Stallman not wanting to expressedly target specific companies. That's the express intent of gpl3, and he's made no effort to hide it. Yet you're the one complaining about blind hero worship. Fail.

The ones demanding public unrestricted open source from Microsoft, as we provide ourselves, in order to collaborate as we collaborate, are Red Hat and the rest of us.

Which is hilarious, because again, Novell's code is out in the open for all to see just as well, except they're willing to make the comprimise because they understand that in the real world you can't make outrageous demands and pretend to, as you put it, play the good cop, because the other guy won't cave in. They're willing the take the extra step and give a little in order to recieve a little. You play in Redmond's court, you play by Redmond's rules, it's that simple. It's business.

more pseudo-rhetoric, newspeak and baseless gibberish

You could have summed it all up into a neat little "I'm completely delusional" and had it done with.

julian67 said...

"How do people operate a computer without knowing how it works? The same way they operate their car, ATM machine, stereo, blender, toaster, microwave, refrigerator, DVD player, camera, electric shaver, and the millions of other proprietary and "closed" goods that exist in this world. Do you refuse to eat at restaurants that will not disclose their secret sauce? You don't know exactly what you're eating. It could be anything; it could even be bleach."

Actually you have confused hardware and software and services but the sauce example is excellent and relevant, because the secret is the recipe, and the analogy is that the source code is the recipe for software. It's worth exploring but I'm busy atm so here's a link instead.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 322   Newer› Newest»