[svlug] Expectations for Windows XP and Linux

[Lord Sauron]

On 7/24/06, Walt Reed <svlug at linuxguy.com> wrote:
> Out of order and broken quoting fixed... (Please configure your mail
> client correctly.)
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 12:32:50PM -0700, Tom Pilot said:
> > Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> >   Quoting Tom Pilot (hman_120 at yahoo.com):
> >
> >>> Maybe instead of constantly slamming windows, energy would be better
> >>> spent in making Linux as 802.11b/g friendly as windows is? Of the 2
> >>> laptops that I have, every time I put windows on them, my wifi cards
> >>> work almost instantly. As soon I install Linux I need to spend 5 hours
> >>> on each to get wifi to work.
> >>
> >> It's easy to make Linux easy to use on the general run of wifi cards.
> >> All you have to do is give up on open source, and buy a distribution
> >> that includes a raft of proprietary drivers.
> >>
> >> Of course, most Linux distributions' maintainers refuse to buy into that
> >> trap. Thus, if you've selected your hardware poorly, you may end up
> >> feeling compelled to retrofit proprietary workarounds (madwifi,
> >> ndiswrapper, etc.).
> >>
> >>> so quit ya bitchin about windows and just like you learn to imitate
> >>> the windows UI in kde and gnome, start imitating the WIFI support
> >>> windows has!
> >>
> >> Proprietary junk, no-reverse-engineering clauses, etc.? No thanks, Tom.
> >> No going there.
>
> > In the beginning (6 years ago?) support for regular cat5 lan was
> > difficult, and installing an ethernet card was hard and tedious .
> > today the process is fully automated, when installing pretty much any
> > linux distro. So why cant we get to this stage with wifi hardware...
> > wifi hardware and ethernet hardware is just as proprietory, etc. I
>
> Ah - but there is a difference. LAN hardware is needed for servers. Wifi
> is not. Wifi is 99% laptops which is probably the smallest corporate
> installed base of Linux.
>
> HP and IBM have a huge vested interest in making sure their servers are
> well supported by Linux due to the demands of enterprise IT where
> corporate adoption of Linux is huge. The corporate demand for Linux
> desktops has not reached the levels needed to force manufacturers to
> cooperate.
>
> > think the linux community is just slow to respond to hardware
> > innovations, or at least not as fast as Microsoft is able to.  Lets
>
> Microsoft doesn't respond. Hardware manufacturers do. I think that's the
> part you are missing here.

Yes, I forgot to emphasize that.

> > review this now and try to really solve the problem starting with this
> > basic question:
> >
> >   - What does microsoft have that allows it to have so much better wifi support in its OS?
>
> A near monopoly on the desktop which forces hardware manufacturers to
> write drivers for their platform. The MFR's BEG MS to include their
> drivers and pay big bucks to get them "Microsoft certified and signed".
> It really is that simple.
>
> It's not the Linux community you have to convince. It's the hardware
> manufacturers (which include the chip vendors almost more than the card
> vendors.)

And I don't see the hardware manufacturers doing this not because they
can't make the driver for linux, but because they don't want to
*publish* it.  If Linux makes publishing as easy as sending your
driver to a centralized database and calling it a day, then you've
made it easier to get a driver on Linux than on Windows, where you'll
need to call up M$, bribe them, fix your driver, upload it, get the
rejection form, bribe them again, and then finally find it on the WHQL
list.

That's my thinking.  What's yours?

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========