«

Interesting report on the state of hardware support for Linux
<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-331541.html>:

... the Project receives on average, two requests a month from
manufacturers to have drivers written.

...

Such drivers have been written "for a wide range of different hardware
devices" and been included into the main kernel tree ...

Note the key point here: the hardware manufacturers are realizing that
effort spent in writing their own drivers is just subtracting from their own
profit: better to just release the hardware specs, and let others provide
the drivers. Hardware vendors should stick to hardware, not try to write
software. The folks who know software do it better anyway.

Another interesting statement:

Kroah-Hartman said Linux has reached mainstream status on the desktop,
at least on the enterprise space. "There are very large companies that
are well known users of Linux in this manner: all of the movie
companies, Ford, Peugeot, all of the Wall Street companies, almost all
banks [and] the stock exchanges," he said.

On 2009-08-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
> Interesting report on the state of hardware support for Linux
><http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-331541.html>:
>
> ... the Project receives on average, two requests a month from
> manufacturers to have drivers written.
>
> ...
>
> Such drivers have been written "for a wide range of different hardware
> devices" and been included into the main kernel tree ...
>
> Note the key point here: the hardware manufacturers are realizing that
> effort spent in writing their own drivers is just subtracting from their own
> profit: better to just release the hardware specs, and let others provide
> the drivers. Hardware vendors should stick to hardware, not try to write
> software. The folks who know software do it better anyway.
>
> Another interesting statement:
>
> Kroah-Hartman said Linux has reached mainstream status on the desktop,
> at least on the enterprise space. "There are very large companies that
> are well known users of Linux in this manner: all of the movie
> companies, Ford, Peugeot, all of the Wall Street companies, almost all
> banks [and] the stock exchanges," he said.
>
Something smells fishy. Big companies using Linux desktops. A French one to
boot.

Banks and stock exchanges as well. I would have thought they would be the last
to do so.

Is the Linux desktop going crash onto the scene via the "back door"?
Significance before emergence.

On Aug 15, 9:34*pm, Gordon <gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> On 2009-08-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> > Interesting report on the state of hardware support for Linux
> ><http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-331541.html>:
>
> > * * ... the Project receives on average, two requests a month from
> > * * manufacturers to have drivers written.
>
> > * * ...
>
> > * * Such drivers have been written "for a wide range of different hardware
> > * * devices" and been included into the main kernel tree ...
>
> > Note the key point here: the hardware manufacturers are realizing that
> > effort spent in writing their own drivers is just subtracting from their own
> > profit: better to just release the hardware specs, and let others provide
> > the drivers. Hardware vendors should stick to hardware, not try to write
> > software. The folks who know software do it better anyway.
>
> > Another interesting statement:
>
> > * * Kroah-Hartman said Linux has reached mainstream status on the desktop,
> > * * at least on the enterprise space. "There are very large companies that
> > * * are well known users of Linux in this manner: all of the movie
> > * * companies, Ford, Peugeot, all of the Wall Street companies, almost all
> > * * banks [and] the stock exchanges," he said.
>
> Something smells fishy. Big companies using Linux desktops. A French one to
> boot.
>
> Banks and stock exchanges as well. I would have thought they would be the last
> to do so.
>
> Is the Linux desktop going crash onto the scene via the "back door"?
> Significance before emergence.

Yes, an organisation with large 'back office' functions is likely to
find the case for Linux / Open Office desktops particularly
compelling. There is no need for complete compatibility with MS
Office, etc - if there were a niche need (eg public relations dept),
this would be met by a few MS oriented machines. Individual staff
preferences are not very relevant - they are in no position to moan
and whinge about having to use an alternative desktop.

The key advantages are vastly reduced chances of virus problems, no
licencing issues and greater company control over upgrades etc.. ith
respect to licencing this means there is no need to have to let
busybodies representing Microsoft etc into commercially sensitive
areas and muck around with machines containing critical confidential
data.

Not all such companies will care to make the transition. Some will
prefer remaining 'proprietary' so there is someone to sue if things go
haywire (the thought of trying to sue Microsoft is rather laughable).
Others may think it is too risky.

peterwn wrote:
> On Aug 15, 9:34 pm, Gordon <gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> On 2009-08-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting report on the state of hardware support for Linux
>>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-331541.html>:
>>> ... the Project receives on average, two requests a month from
>>> manufacturers to have drivers written.
>>> ...
>>> Such drivers have been written "for a wide range of different hardware
>>> devices" and been included into the main kernel tree ...
>>> Note the key point here: the hardware manufacturers are realizing that
>>> effort spent in writing their own drivers is just subtracting from their own
>>> profit: better to just release the hardware specs, and let others provide
>>> the drivers. Hardware vendors should stick to hardware, not try to write
>>> software. The folks who know software do it better anyway.
>>> Another interesting statement:
>>> Kroah-Hartman said Linux has reached mainstream status on the desktop,
>>> at least on the enterprise space. "There are very large companies that
>>> are well known users of Linux in this manner: all of the movie
>>> companies, Ford, Peugeot, all of the Wall Street companies, almost all
>>> banks [and] the stock exchanges," he said.
>> Something smells fishy. Big companies using Linux desktops. A French one to
>> boot.
>>
>> Banks and stock exchanges as well. I would have thought they would be the last
>> to do so.
>>
>> Is the Linux desktop going crash onto the scene via the "back door"?
>> Significance before emergence.
>
> Yes, an organisation with large 'back office' functions is likely to
> find the case for Linux / Open Office desktops particularly
> compelling. There is no need for complete compatibility with MS
> Office, etc - if there were a niche need (eg public relations dept),
> this would be met by a few MS oriented machines. Individual staff
> preferences are not very relevant - they are in no position to moan
> and whinge about having to use an alternative desktop.
>
> The key advantages are vastly reduced chances of virus problems, no
> licencing issues and greater company control over upgrades etc.. ith
> respect to licencing this means there is no need to have to let
> busybodies representing Microsoft etc into commercially sensitive
> areas and muck around with machines containing critical confidential
> data.
>
> Not all such companies will care to make the transition. Some will
> prefer remaining 'proprietary' so there is someone to sue if things go
> haywire (the thought of trying to sue Microsoft is rather laughable).
> Others may think it is too risky.
>
Not while there is no viable alternative to Exchange/Outlook. There is
still nothing that comes anywhere near.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

In message <>, geoff wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Interesting report on the state of hardware support for Linux
>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-331541.html>:
>>
>> ... the Project receives on average, two requests a month from
>> manufacturers to have drivers written.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Such drivers have been written "for a wide range of different
>> hardware devices" and been included into the main kernel tree ...
>
> That's odd. Most of my accessories don't have Linux drivers - or if so
> are 3rd-party hacks.

For instance?

In message <>, geoff wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <>, geoff
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting report on the state of hardware support for Linux
>>>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-331541.html>:
>>>>
>>>> ... the Project receives on average, two requests a month from
>>>> manufacturers to have drivers written.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Such drivers have been written "for a wide range of different
>>>> hardware devices" and been included into the main kernel tree ...
>>>
>>> That's odd. Most of my accessories don't have Linux drivers - or if
>>> so are 3rd-party hacks.
>>
>> For instance?
>
> My plentiful array of graphics , audio, and video interfaces for a
> starters.
>
> And sorry no, I'm not going to itemise them...

In other words, you're not going to back up your dubious claims, you loser,
you.

In message <>, geoff wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <>, geoff wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In message <>, geoff
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's odd. Most of my accessories don't have Linux drivers - or
>>>>> if so are 3rd-party hacks.
>>>>
>>>> For instance?
>>>
>>> My plentiful array of graphics , audio, and video interfaces for a
>>> starters.
>>>
>>> And sorry no, I'm not going to itemise them...
>>
>> In other words, you're not going to back up your dubious claims, you
>> loser, you.
>
> Yes, I'm a loser. A loser with better things to do.

Why did you even bother to bring it up, then? Is it like a kids' game with
you, to come up and yell "touch", then run away when the adults turn around?

On Aug 17, 6:46*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <pvidnakEHvpPfhXXnZ2dnVY3go2dn...@giganews.com>, geoff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> >> In message <4OudnSZXuNMIURXXnZ2dnVY3goudn...@giganews.com>, geoff wrote:
>
> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> >>>> In message <2bOdnfUMtru6FhXXnZ2dnUVZ_vydn...@giganews.com>, geoff
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> That's odd. *Most of my accessories don't have Linux drivers - or
> >>>>> if so are 3rd-party hacks.
>
> >>>> For instance?
>
> >>> My plentiful array of graphics , audio, *and video interfaces for a
> >>> starters.
>
> >>> And sorry no, I'm not going to itemise them...
>
> >> In other words, you're not going to back up your dubious claims, you
> >> loser, you.
>
> > Yes, I'm a loser. A loser with better things to do.
>
> Why did you even bother to bring it up, then? Is it like a kids' game with
> you, to come up and yell "touch", then run away when the adults turn around?

Makes a change from someone else mindlessly cutting and pasting
everything one can find that is anti windows while mooing 'Dimdows'.
..

In message <>, geoff wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <>, geoff
>
>>>>>In message <h6afpl$q8v$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <>, geoff
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's odd. Most of my accessories don't have Linux drivers - or if
>>>>>>> so are 3rd-party hacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance?
>>>>>
>>>>> My plentiful array of graphics , audio, and video interfaces for a
>>>>> starters.
>>>>>
>>>>> And sorry no, I'm not going to itemise them...
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you're not going to back up your dubious claims, you
>>>> loser, you.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm a loser. A loser with better things to do.
>>
>> Why did you even bother to bring it up, then? Is it like a kids' game
>> with you, to come up and yell "touch", then run away when the adults
>> turn around?
>
> Cos it's easy to reply to your inane assertions, but I've better things to
> do that to commit time and effort to follow them up. Especially as the
> data would simply not be absorbed by you anyway.

It's a simple factual statement: Linux has better hardware support than any
other OS past or present. Easy to prove wrong, or at least make to look
shaky, if indeed you have a "plentiful array" of off-the-shelf devices which
do not work under Linux. Plus you get the chance to make me look stupid into
the bargain--how's that for a bonus?

Yet you can't, can you? Because you made a completely bogus claim, and now
you're furiously backpedalling by trying to suggest that there's no point in
backing it up, plus tossing in a helping of ad-hominem smokescreen for good
measure. Because it turns out you've been, shall we say, a little economical
with the truth.

In message <>, geoff wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Yet you can't, can you? Because you made a completely bogus claim,
>> and now you're furiously backpedalling by trying to suggest that
>> there's no point in backing it up, plus tossing in a helping of
>> ad-hominem smokescreen for good measure. Because it turns out you've
>> been, shall we say, a little economical with the truth.
>
> As you like. But you are the only person likely to believe yourself.

Do you do that with the ladies, as well? Tell them you have a "plentiful
array" of lovemaking techniques that'll knock their socks off baby, then
when they tell you to put up or shut up, suddenly it's "sorry no, I'm not
going to itemise them, so you can 'win' if that makes you feel better", and
"I'm a loser with better things to do", and "the data would simply not be
absorbed by you anyway"?