What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
223 Comments
- nielkie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+195In other news: "Vista isn't compatible with most existing computers"
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+160Enderle has already banned by a few. He is a shill, not an analyst, and some journalists finally realise it.
Quotes from him:
"I started writing about Linux because I was told I couldn't and the more people told me I couldn't, and particularly when they said 'or else,' the more the Linux dirty laundry became attractive to me" Rob Enderle
"many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents. Enterprises are better off staying away from Linux and open source", Rob Enderle
"Linux is being widely used on the desktop in the third world, where applications are limited and labor is inexpensive", Rob Enderle
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorist .. I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that zealots", Rob Enderle
Like Laura DiDiot, Rent-to-rant Rob gets paid by Microsoft, which he would admit is his client. - bestadvocate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+140They interviewed Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group, a funded pundit for SCO and Microsoft, famous among Mac fans as being the winner of the "Death Knell Count" , as in he predicted the death of Apple computers since 1995 more times than any other pundit http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/
No wonder they got it wrong, asking the wrong sources, without even the time taken to check their sources with Google. - SnowPuffKing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+112Yeah, newspapers don't give near enough coverage to Ubuntu and people with private parts on their feet.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+107If you want to register your complaints about the article's inaccuracies, you can reach the article's author at this e-mail address:
dzehr@statesman.com
Please, be civil. A bunch of ranting, foaming at the mouth malcontents will only make Linux look bad. A bunch of well written, reasonable and well supported letters will show the article's author that he trusted an unreliable source. - martynda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+75Microsoft's very own Ann Coulter? How exciting!
- andycr512, on 10/12/2007, -1/+68I have spoken personally with Enderle via email, and he is either a shill who is very good at acting clueless, or a clueless person who is very good at acting like a shill.
- TheRealToma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+63I think ID games makes a damned good point why computer-based games dont run on linux.
Because the lazy stupid game developers dont make binaries for it! MORONS. - powatom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+62@Yokai - that rarely needs to be done. The only time 'millions of lines of code' ever need to be rewritten is when the original version used very platform specific code. Any developer worth his/her salt will make code which is maintainable, easily portable, and, gasp, stays away from platform specificity. If your code is locked to a single platform, then when that platform goes down the sink, so do all of your products.
In the game-dev world, the big problem is DirectX - a Microsoft specific API which locks developers into coding only for Windows. If developers just used OpenGL - then the problem wouldn't exist. The Win32 Api brings it's own problems - I haven't seen the latest that Vista brings to the table, but, knowing, Microsoft, it will only further the gap between code which can be compiled for many platforms, and code which can compile on only a Windows platform.
It is true that there are millions of lines of DirectX code, but Linux users aren't necessarily asking for ports of old games. We want NEW games to be created which we can ALL enjoy, not just those people on Windows. Propietary formats and propietary standards are absolutely the bane of technological advancement. - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+61LInux can run on x86 & x86_64 PCs, PPC (Mac hardware), Sun's Sparc, PDAs, cellphones, there is even a wristwatch running Linux, IBM's supercomputer Blue Gene L runs linux...
there is most likely other hardware platforms i haven't mentioned running Linux...
what does ms-windows run on? = x86 & x86_64 only - and buggy, vulnerable & fragile at that, what other OS will fall over by the millions like a row of dominos from just a simple one line virus? = none except ms-windows...
happyTrails :) - leonreynauld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51Even the ipod can run linux
- pdiddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+44Considerably full of ***** ;) When he says it's "not designed for the desktop", he's just chewing on that old chestnut where Linux is only good on servers but doesn't have a good GUI etc etc. I've been using Linux solely as my desktop for the past 3 years now and all because my desktop experience is much better than what I had with windows.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40"... or it the writer of this article full of *****?"
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37Excuse me, I'm a (Linux) n00b, but in the article he says; "Linux was simply not designed for the desktop, neither as a product nor given the economic model around it," said Rob Enderle, head of the Enderle Group in San Jose, Calif. "It will be hard for Dell to make it work."
Again, I'm a n00b so don't beat me up over this question: I thought that one of the great things about Linux is that it is scalable and as leonreynauld stated above, "Even the iPod can run Linux." I know that there are some PDAs running Linux. So what gives? Is it just the games aspect or it the writer of this article full of *****? - chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Linux is, should be, compatible with most computers
But
Not a lot of games have been designed for linux, I'm sure lots of movie editing, programming, content creation, etc software is available for linux
So...
Linux to the gamer - Not so great
Linux to everyone else - Great alternative to Windows - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -11/+42Hay! I'm a potty mouthed malcontent!
- cowabuse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31You've nailed it, it's full of ***** that trails back to Microsoft. I would not be surprised if these non-sense anti-linux articles are being excreted by *****. Microsoft* , typo :P
- laserdisc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31YEAH! Vista is mostly unusable compared to say last year's Linux distributions. Enderle is such a sham, how the hell is this guy still around!?
- darkliquid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29That's probably because you have no idea what you are actually doing and rather than research it you are bitching about it on digg.. i'm gonna bet its the RAID driver and i'm also gonna bet the fix is quick and simple... typically is.
- Sultana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Oh, dear god. I'm so embarrassed.
I work for that paper. I'm also pretty new to Linux, and have installed it on three different computers at home. It works better than XP did. Recognized everything pretty much out of the box.
I shot off an email to Zehr. will be curious to see what he has to say to me.... - DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Most people aren't compatible with most existing computers also.
- arjie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20chingy: Relax, it's true that most games have not been designed for Linux, and that it isn't the OS of choice for gamers right now. In any case, Wine isn't really an emulator in the sense you're thinking and in fact wine performs better on some benchmarks than windows itself.
Anyway, go read this:
http://www.winehq.com/site/myths
(your comment seems to be the first myth :D ) - locnar1701, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19The Austin American Statesman is NOT a decent paper. They miss massive details in most articles and can't research the meaning of research. I have lived in Austin for 12 years, and I can tell you that quoting the Statesman is highly dubious...
- truthRises, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19We all know that linux is probably the MOST compatible operating system out there. Of all the computers that have ever been produced, a version of linux would probably run on the larger percentage of them than any other operating system.
All Intel compatibles
All PowerPCs
All of Sun's modern platforms
And many more
Let's try to see Vista do that!
Now, what I think most of us may not know, is that the Austin American Statesman is NOT an excellent newspaper. The Austin American Statesman is a right-wing, corporate friendly, sensationalist rag. They even have a new "Faith" section devoted to (Christian) God news.
Most of their articles are ripoff jobs, syndications or AP releases. Their local coverage always supports polluters and conservatives, even though Austin is the most liberal, environmentally conscious city in 1500 miles.
I am not surprised in the least that their coverage was biased, under sourced and technically inept.
(Besides, there are more Computer Geeks in Austin than at a Quakecon. I'd be surprised if anyone who read it didn't see right past the BS.) - leonreynauld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Linux is compatible with most computers, and i don't mean just PC's. You can get distro's for Mac's too. also for games or windows applications you can use Wine. I haven't done this yet but i have heard that you can run game programmed on windows on a directX enabled Wine. please correct me if my information is wrong.
- cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@Yokai:
Since when do most games have MILLIONS of lines of code? And why would they have to be rewritten? You'd have to port any platform specific stuff, but that's usually just the graphics engine, and you don't always have to re-write.
I believe that Microsoft subsidizes some game development to get people to use their Windows-Only API's like DirectX. You can do everything on OpenGL that you can with Direct3D. - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17It's the other way around. The software isn't compatible with linux.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17 Linux is compatible with most computers.
Just more FUD...it just never stops,does it.
- darkliquid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@iceperson
FYI I admin roughly two hundred 2000 and 2003 servers. You're just a close minded douche. Kindly don't click reply buttons until you stop sucking at life. Thank you. - ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@plenderj
Windows was not written for the network! Any security it has is bolted on and works poorly. Linux was designed to be a networking OS, with security in mind. Take away the network from any desktop anywhere and see what happens. Bottom line, Linux is a BETTER desktop OS than Windows. - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@wvdavis: I don't think he was pointing out your typo (I didn't even notice it at first), but rather answering your question, the guy is chock full o feces.
@plenderj: Linus began writing the kernel for his home computer, so.. that's not exactly a mainfame. It was designed for flexibility. - powatom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16 ___________________________________________________________________________________
/@powatom
|Even John Carmack admitted recently that DirectX is a better API than OpenGL.
|
|"Propietary formats and propietary standards are absolutely the bane of technological advancement."
|Propietary or Open doesn't make a technology better. "Good" scientist/engineer/programmer make a technology better, not "More" |scientists/engineers/programmers. You believe if you put 10,000 monkeys in a room with type machines, they will eventually write out Shakespeare play? Do |you believe if you take 10,000 scientists in one place they will think up General Relativity earlier than Einstein?
____________________________________________________________________________________
That's not the point, nor was I arguing the point which you seem to thnk I was. The point is that the argument that Linux 'can't' do something which Windows can is completely incorrect. Linux and Windows can only do as much as the underlying architecture allows them to. Linux can run on any architecture which Windows can, thus, Linux CAN do absolutely anything which Windows can. In many ways, Linux can do MORE than Windows, because, theoretically, you can change the Linux kernel to give you access to something which is currently inaccessible. With Windows, you pretty much rely on having access only to those parts of the system which MS want you to have access to. The two are no more or less capable of doing something.
The problem arises when PROPIETARY, CLOSED formats limit your capability to do something, and you can do nothing about it. DirectX may well be easier to use, but it's only easier to use because it is at a higher level (and that doesn't mean 'better', it means you can actually do less nitty gritty stuff with it, but you get results faster). You can only do whatever MS want to allow you to do. Given the current state of development, DirectX happens to be better to develop games with at the moment, because developers are primarly concerned with speed to market and high profit margins. As soon as serious and significant new advancements are discussed however, high level stuff like DirectX will begin to limit developers. DirectX is great for making nice looking stuff, sure, but if you want to fundamentally change how something works, then OpenGL is the way to go, because it's lower level, and allows you to really get your hands dirty at the expense of development time.
Think of OpenGL as designed to allow you to do a very very wide range of stuff, whereas DirectX focuses on a smaller range of stuff, but allows you to focus more on making them look really good, while cutting your development time. That is the kind of difference we're talking here. OpenGL is just as capable of doing the stuff DirectX does, but it MAY take longer, because nobody has spent the time to take the game-oriented aspects of OpenGL and to wrap them into an easier to use API. If you want to draw a spinning 3D cube in OpenGL, it may take you 100 lines of code, for example. If you do it in DirectX, it may take 75, or 50 lines of code. The cubes will look exactly the same, and the performance will be exactly the same, but the time taken to write it all will be greater in OpenGL than DirectX. The choice to develop in either OpenGL or DirectX then, is based on how much money you want to spend and how much money you want to make. If you want to try something new, then OpenGL may be the best way to go. If you just want to make a million, then use DirectX. The downside is that DirectX is limited to Windows, whereas OpenGL broadens your market, while meaning you may miss the December 15th 'Gold' date.
If somebody spent the time to create an API similar to DirectX, but for OpenGL, then you would see more games on Linux, it's as simple as that. - cowabuse, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23This guy sounds like a close minded, racist ultimate edition prick!
- elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@ iceperson "I can't think of any environment that you can't get windows to work on."
Think harder then.
WindowsXP embedded only supports x86. Windows CE only supports x86,ARM,MIPS,SHx. Good luck getting it to work on Sparc, PPC, Alpha, Hitachi SuperH, IBM S/390, RISC,Vax, AXIS CRIS, Renesas M32R, and Atmel AVR3.
Linkage for Windows Embedded supported processors:
http://www.windowsfordevices.com/articles/AT8836909952.html - spitenmalice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You are being dug down because Linux not being able to run a lot of games natively has nothing to do with the article, that suggests Linux is not compatible with hardware.
I like the attention that Linux is getting recently, especially from Microsoft, shows that they are paying attention to Linux which just proves it's getting more popular and its becoming a threat. - udahlen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Enderle is almost always wrong. I can't figure out why he is continually being quoted.
And, BTW, I work for a big company that runs business critical databases and applications on Linux servers. It's always very surprising to hear how "Linux can't be used in the enterprise market". - barius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@bias
No disrepect to John Cormack, but a direct comparison between DirectX and OpenGL as APIs is not appropriate. Yes, they do similar things. However, the way they accomplish their goals is different. For DX the goal is to be both powerful and easy to use in one package, the 'monolithic' approach that is Microsofts' driving design philosophy. OpenGL on the other hand is designed with 'modularity' in mind (typical of the Free Software world). That is to say that OGL implements an efficient low-level API that is not intended to be easy-to-use. The easy-to-use part is implemented separately as a layer on top of OGL, see SDL which is widely considered to be as easy if not easier to use than DX. This modular approach means that anyone can implement a better 'usability' layer at any time without having to redesign the entire system. Which is the better philosophy? I don't know, but I don't think it's as simple as DX vs. OGL. - rc_collins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12He is right!!!
Linux ONLY supports systems with an Intel 80386, 80486, Pentium,
Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III CPU. This includes all
variations on this CPU type, such as the 386SX, 486SX, 486DX, and
486DX2. Non-Intel "clones," such as AMD and Cyrix processors, work
with Linux as well. Sure Linux has been ported to a number of non-Intel
architectures, including the Alpha AXP, MIPS, PowerPC, SPARC, and
Motorola 68K.
BUT, That only covers 99.9999% of every computer produced in the last 20 years.
--dan - Slacker1031, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Linux is compatible with most computers. Maybe what he was trying to say was Linux isn't compatible with most software. Obviously a lot of professional grade software made for windows and mac isn't going to work on Linux, and there isn't always an open source alternative, but surely that doesn't mean the OS itself isn't compatible with the computer it's running on. How is that even possible?
- ryanmetcalf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Linux was simply not designed for the desktop, neither as a product nor given the economic model around it," said Rob Enderle, head of the Enderle Group in San Jose, Calif. "It will be hard for Dell to make it work."
"Because Linux isn't compatible with most existing computers, what it can do is somewhat limited, analysts said. For example, few computer-based games run on Linux. Versions of Linux would work better on an appliance-type desktop — one that performs a smaller set of specific functions, said Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates Inc. "
--How much did Microsoft shell out for this article? - coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11According to Dell, That machine is compatible with Red Hat and SuSE. http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_1900?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~tab=specstab
And don't take Iceperson's cries of "nub" seriously, he's got some grudge against linux for whatever reason. Check his comments http://digg.com/users/iceperson/news/commented/linux_unix - Chaseb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I second your opinion. It is a rag.
- Sagarian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I agree it looks like a typo/write-o in that if you replace "computers" with "software" in that one sentence the rest of it makes sense. Still, that's a really poor mistake to make, especially for a paper that covers technology as frequently as the Austin American-Statesman does.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@iceperson
You're kidding right?
All those platforms are supported by current versions of Linux.
Windows currently supports ONLY the recent x86 and x86_64 platforms.
Yes, old versions of Windows will run on the older x86 chips, but there is no active development for Windows 3.x, 95, 98, NT and so on. People wanting to use a 386 today (Mainly the embedded systems market, Intel still makes the chips) turn to FreeDOS, Embedded Linux or another embedded system.
The closest you get to the support for non X86 chips in a modern Microsoft OS is WinCE (Now Widows Powered) which is hardly a full fledged desktop OS.
Oh, and there were some versions of Windows NT that ran on the Alpha chips.
Let's do a quick run down of the platforms already mentioned:
All Intel compatibles: Windows currently supports only the first few generations, but there are discontinued versions of Windows that ran on every generation of the x86 line form the 286 up.
All PowerPCs: There has NEVER been a Microsoft OS that would run on this platform.
All of Sun's modern platforms: There has NEVER been a Microsoft OS that would run on this platform.
There are a LOT of platforms out there, particularly for embedded devices, and Microsoft runs on relatively few of them. - arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16I don't mean to start anything nasty here, and I hope I don't, becasue I don't say this with a malicious tone toward the community in general, but I find Fedora Core completely unusable. I've tried several distros, and Fedora seems the least intuitive of any. I wish it could be better. It seems like it has a lot of potential, but it's just unusable.
But I love open source and GNU/Linux in general. It gives people the functionality to have sound systems (servers, desktops, media centers, etc) without the enormous costs from proprietary software. I myself have Ubuntu running on my server, with a 3 HDD RAID 0, and also on my iMac, dual booted with Mac OS X. I hadn't before just recently discovered that the Ubuntu alternate installation disc allows for software RAID installations. That's just amazing right there. - jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I think he meant software. Even then, it's a poorly worded statement.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9 If that distro does not work,try another one...Don't give up after one try.
Ive used Linspire,PCLinux and Freespire,all worked without a hitch. - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@iceperson
Yes, I mentioned Windows Embedded an pointed out that it's not a desktop OS. It's in the same league as the Palm OS and FreeDOS.
The bottom line is, Linux and BSD are the two full fledged Operating Systems that run on the most platforms. Microsoft's only current offerings outside of the x86 and line x86_64 chips is an embedded platform. - Singular1ty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow, that is one stupid human being. Not to mention it's unacceptable for someone who calls himself a journalist to report something so entirely false, unless of course it was an opinion piece but I didn't see that anywhere in the article. I will admit that I'm not entirely fond of Linux but I would never claim something like that... It's just ignorant.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7isn't Linux only 2nd to BSD for platforms that its been ported to ?
I'm pretty sure those two OS's can run on more platforms than any other OS.
Wasn't Linux the first os to run on the Opteron and Xeon?
I'm can't think of a processor that it won't run on besides the Z80. -
Show 51 - 100 of 224 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is