[svlug] Maximum Linux dead

[Dagmar d'Surreal]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Daevid Vincent wrote:

> > You appear to have somehow missed the fact that Daevid talks
> > (incessantly) about the allegedly fabulous and non-portable merits of
> > Microsoft Corporation's Win32 versions.
> 
> not to start this same 'gang up on me' war we have over and over, but I do
> not "incessantly" talk about how great microsoft's products are. I do state
> and stand by the fact that IE *is* a better browser. Why is that so hard for
> you to believe? It is easy to code javascript in IE as everything is
> accessable, it renders very fast, it's JVM is superior to Netscape's/Sun's
> in speed, and while I do prefer how NS stores links in a single file (and
> has notes too), this is something I'll gladly live without.
> 
> It seems to me that the old Unix/Linux motto of 'the best tool for the job'
> should be changed to 'the best Linux only tool for the job'... If you and
> some of the rest of the memebers in this community would stop being so
> prejudice and close minded, you might realize that there are certain things
> that -- oh my god blasphemy -- Linux is NOT good at (currently). Rendering
> 3D is not one of them. Audio/MIDI is another. And anything but generic HTML
> is a third.
> 
> And while we're on this topic -- the _concept_ of DirectX is excellent, and
> something that Linux could greatly benefit from. If there were a standard
> driver API for audio and video then porting of other products would be much
> quicker and more efficient. As it stands, you have OpenGL, MESA, GDI (or
> whatever it's called), SDL, OSS, OpenAL, etc. etc. Then there are several
> flavors of X-windows (XFree86, Xi, Metro, ...) each having thier own video
> card drivers! Pile on top of that the various graphics API's like Gtk, Qt,
> and whatever else there is -- hell, KDE and GNOME can't even agree on what
> to use. It's a programmer's nightmare for anything but the simplest 2D
> windowed applications.

Unfortunately the functionality of DirectX makes use of a number of
functions that user-level processes aren't likely to be a allowed to do
under most circumstances because the Linux kernel (unlike Windows) happens
to have a security model one can't just sidestep when one wishes.

Mesa is identical to OpenGL for most people's uses.  They just don't have
a licence from SGI.

While there are different implementations of X, most of them seem to allow
apps to compile as if they were a fairly generic X.  Go figure.

Gtk and QT are not graphics APIs.  They are User Interface Toolkits.  Big
huge massive difference.  ImageMagick contains a graphics API.  Imlib is a
graphics API.  KDE and Gnome don't need to "agree" on what to use.  They
simply use different toolkits, primarily because the GTK/Gnome people are
a little more hardcore than the KDE folks and decided to simply keep
building on what they had come up with while working on the Gimp.

I begin to get the feeling you don't do a lot of compiling from source.

> All this fragmentation is hurting the community, not helping. Sometimes too
> many choices is not a benefit, it adds to confusion and 'wars', impeding
> progress and generally dragging the OS down.

No.  I totally disagree on this point.  Unlike other operating systems
that people might be fond of, Linux software tends to not settle down and
become ubiquitous in any given area until we have a *clearly* solid and
dependable solution.  So long as both Gnome and KDE are reasonably
functional, people will continue to use them, and probably more
importantly the Gnome and KDE guys will continue to compete with each
other.

How long did it take Microsoft (by comparison) to come up with the
user-interface tweaks that in most areas came from Linux developers first?  
How long do you think it's going to take Microsoft to learn to code
properly so that they don't suck down >64Mb of RAM just booting for two
icons?  Linux develops rapidly because there is competition.  For the most
part, there's something really Darwinian occurring.  Approaches to
software that suck get abandoned and tend to die off under Linux.  Under
Windows they just become "Legacy Applications".

I really don't agree that the variety of Unix applications available for
Linux is some kind of shortcoming.  It gives us a great deal of
flexibility in adapting our machines to suit each particular task at
hand.  (and, since jabs at the senslessness of another OS are en vogue,
we're a lot harder to obliterate with a single virus)