151–160 of 384 posts
When you think Gnome, you probably think Fedora. Fedora and Gnome are buddy-buddy, and being basically the upstream of RHEL makes it the place to be if you are big on Gnome. KDE has Kubuntu, kind of, since its sponsored by Blue Systems, but there is a huge issue with how KDE is presented to users in that the Ubuntu release cycle has no correlation to the KDE one, and since Plasma 5 has started shipping in Kubuntu tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite telling though that most microkernel proponents tend not to be kernel developers.
Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers. It's quite telling that you have no leg to stand on but to resort to hapless diversions. Or I suppose the flood of researchers who have built viable and innovative microkernel-based architectures throughout the decades are all a bunch of phonies?
They don't have to be. All they have to do is not go around smugly suggesting they know better than kernel developers and they're ok in my books.
Incidentally, precisely how many of those research kernels have become widely used, mainstream kernels capable of high-throughput?
And do you really think it has turned out that way because the whole industry is full of blind dumbasses? I think it's a far more likely proposition that they understand something you don't.
The fact is, if you vet your hardware and use a major distro (Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora) you'll wind up with a perfectly functioning Linux desktop or laptop.
You think about it, OSX only runs on a few laptops. Linux runs perfectly on more laptops than exist for OSX. Windows run on many laptops, more often than not quite well, not always perfect though, despite being bundled together.
I've been using Ubuntu on a ThinkPad T530 for several years, it just works. Couldn't be happier. Everything works BTW, function keys, fingerprint scanner, everything.
As for the Linux eco-system - major browsers work, Steam works, there's a phenomenal ecosystem around Linux if you do any sort of programming, data science, etc... I really have nothing to complain about these days.
He's right. Many of the driver problems come from the fact that Linux finally worked on the desktop about the time desktop machines were replaced by laptops. Desktops with slots tended to have relatively well-defined hardware, and plugging in third party hardware was normal. This is much less true for laptops. OS development for laptops requires that laptop. It needs a Q/A organization which has one of everything you…
"The monolithic Linux kernel is just too big. What is it now, 20,000,000 lines? There's no hope of debugging that. It shows." I don't think you know what you're talking about. It shows. Name me one non-"monolithic" OS kernel in mainstream use that manages high throughput. And macos doesn't count as a microkernel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tanenbaum was vindicated two decades ago, but most people have yet to get the memo. A lot are under the impression that basic software design principles apply to everything besides operating system kernels, for some reason. And the myth is highly persistent.
It's quite telling though that most microkernel proponents tend not to be kernel developers.
He's right. Many of the driver problems come from the fact that Linux finally worked on the desktop about the time desktop machines were replaced by laptops. Desktops with slots tended to have relatively well-defined hardware, and plugging in third party hardware was normal. This is much less true for laptops. OS development for laptops requires that laptop. It needs a Q/A organization which has one of everything you…
"The monolithic Linux kernel is just too big. What is it now, 20,000,000 lines? There's no hope of debugging that. It shows." I don't think you know what you're talking about. It shows. Name me one non-"monolithic" OS kernel in mainstream use that manages high throughput. And macos doesn't count as a microkernel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers. It's quite telling that you have no leg to stand on but to resort to hapless diversions. Or I suppose the flood of researchers who have built viable and innovative microkernel-based architectures throughout the decades are all a bunch of phonies?
"Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers." They don't have to be. All they have to do is not go around smugly suggesting they know better than kernel developers and they're ok in my books. Incidentally, precisely how many of those research kernels have become widely used, mainstream kernels capable of high-throughput? And do you really think it has turned out that way because the whole industry is ful…
> X.org 2D acceleration technologies and APIs aren't as mature and fast as Direct2D and DirectWrite in Windows. This complaint is confused. X is the wrong place for that stuff (the failure of XRender to live up to expectations being a testament to this). The windowing server should be multiplexing GPU buffers and that's it. Direct2D and DirectWrite are user mode, client side libraries on Windows. (Maybe the author ha…
> Year 2015 welcomed us with 134 vulnerabilities in one package alone: WebKitGTK+ WSA-2015-0002. More eyes, less vulnerabilities you say, right?
Glancing through the list that was linked to, most of these vulnerabilities affected Chrome on Windows/Mac and/or Safari on Mac too. It's not fair to use general vulnerabilities in widely used Web browser engines as an indictment of Linux specifically. Nor is "look at the number of vulnerabilities in Web browser engines!" a particularly good proxy for anything other than how popular, and security-critical, Web browser engines are. (Some of the other security criticisms, for example of X, seem fair though—e.g. DRI2 is really bad.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tanenbaum was vindicated two decades ago, but most people have yet to get the memo. A lot are under the impression that basic software design principles apply to everything besides operating system kernels, for some reason. And the myth is highly persistent.
It's quite telling though that most microkernel proponents tend not to be kernel developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers. It's quite telling that you have no leg to stand on but to resort to hapless diversions. Or I suppose the flood of researchers who have built viable and innovative microkernel-based architectures throughout the decades are all a bunch of phonies?
"Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers." They don't have to be. All they have to do is not go around smugly suggesting they know better than kernel developers and they're ok in my books. Incidentally, precisely how many of those research kernels have become widely used, mainstream kernels capable of high-throughput? And do you really think it has turned out that way because the whole industry is ful…
YMMV on mainstream (they are widely adopted, though), but: OKL4, PikeOS, QNX...
It's quite obvious you have no background on the issues and are using this as an opportunity for provocation.