Operating systems

[john]

A lot of the blame here lies at the feet of hardware and software manufacturers who refuse to write and distribute drivers and software for Linux based machines.

According to a story on the BBC news this year Windows was the OS used on 9 out of 10 machines so it would be unfair to expect manufacturers to develop drivers etc for a minority market especially when most of the remaining 10% will mostly be made up of Mac users. Shouldn't it really be up to the open source community to develop drivers for hardware.

Please don't misunderstand me I think other OS's do have some advantages over Windows. I would think Linux would be much more suitable for servers where there is not so much a requirement to support diverse hardware. Although Windows has it's faults it has the advantage of being virtually universal and therefore compatible with most hardware and sofware and also readily supported by external IT companies which is why it's used so much in industry who are the major users.

For industrial applications the cost of the OS and licence are not the primary concern. It's the compatability with their applications and the support costs that matter.

[Rik]

I used both 3.1 and 3.11 but found very little differences between them at the time. I was only 7 though!

I was... No, let's not go there.

3.11 was really 3.1 SP1, very little difference in practice, just a little more stable.

[Rik]

For industrial applications the cost of the OS and licence are not the primary concern. It's the compatability with their applications and the support costs that matter.

Not to mention training costs & productivity, John. Most people will be familiar with Windows, so it's a big incentive.

[Ted]

Rik can i borrow your pointy white cap with the big red D on it, i've been unfair to the hardware manufacturers and i need to sit in the corner for a while

[cavillas]

How can you be unfair to Capitalists?  They invest in R&D so a little bit more for Linux drivers would'nt amount to much, especially the prices they charge for their products and consumables.

I love free and shared. Waiting for the flack now.

[Ted]

you and me both!!

[Rik]

Rik can i borrow your pointy white cap with the big red D on it, i've been unfair to the hardware manufacturers and i need to sit in the corner for a while

It's OK, hardware manufacturers are unfair to us - no need for the hat.

[Ted]

Thanks Rik, i look even more ridiculous in a hat

[john]

How can you be unfair to Capitalists?  They invest in R&D so a little bit more for Linux drivers would'nt amount to much, especially the prices they charge for their products and consumables.

I love free and shared. Waiting for the flack now.

Hi Cavillas, get your flack defences ready then    Like it or not software manufacturers have to operate as a business and not a charity. The Open source community can have a different philosophy and have a policy of developing a free OS and support and therefore should be prepared to write their own drivers etc to support their OS's and applications rather than expect the business community to do it for them for free. If they did the additional costs would have to be added to the price of the products they sell making them less competitive with their rivals and also the Open source community would be subsidised by the Windows and Mac users.

Te open source community has to decide do they really want to be truly open source or do they want a watered down compromise.

[Ted]

I thought this one had gone to bed !!
Just out of curiosity can anyone tell me what server software IDNET use on their servers? I'm really hoping its just Windows, I wouldn't want any of that watered down rubbish.

[Ted]

Sorry, just a couple of thoughts
If you use a netgear router, you probably use Linux, ever heard of Busybox. Mobile phones use embedded linux too. The list goes on and on.
So, its ok for hardware manufacturers to take advantage of open source software when it suits them and its profitable, but when it comes to giving a little back to the community its, too much trouble and costs too much.

[john]

It's not quite the same thing though as the manufacturers will have developed the software that is needed and not asked or waited for the open source community to do it for free.

[Ted]

Where did they get the software to develop it?

[john]

Okay I'll accept that the OS the software was developed for was free.

[Ted]

Game, set.........and match!!

[john]

But it makes no difference, I still think that Linux is doomed to be a minorty OS and the software houses are not going to develop applications for it if they are obliged to give them away for free and so the hardware manufacturers will not make much of an effort to write drivers for them just so they can sell a few more printers for example.

[Ted]

I think the difference is that, you already lost the argument mate. Give it up!!

[john]

Oh Okay then, I originally thought it was this was just going to be a discussion on the merits of different OS's but it's turning out to be, as you say, an argument. The pity is I would actually have preferred to use Linux as I learnt UNIX in 1990 and didn't start to use Windows until about eight years later and I only gave up my UNIX box 3 months ago (I can still telnet to the UNIX server though  ).

[Ted]

you're right it is a pity, just leave it.

[Rik]

Just out of curiosity can anyone tell me what server software IDNET use on their servers? I'm really hoping its just Windows, I wouldn't want any of that watered down rubbish.

The web space is Linux/Unix, I can't speak for the rest though.