ASUS starts to suck severly

[stevea]

How silly to blame Asus. It's a makreting decision. Is it Asus fault that Linux doesn't have the level of driver/device support and Windows ? Is it Asus fault that all sorts of widely used s/w is Windows only ?

When someone goes to a PC shop and picks up any random software or some deviant hardware with some necessary driver CD, there is a 99% probability it won't run on Linux without a struggle.

You can't blame the hardware and s/w mfgrs for catering to 95% of the end-user market first either.

The problem is that *we* Linux advocates have failed. We haven't convinced enough ppl to give up MS products. I belong to a local Linux user's group and I am ALWAYS stunned at how many users still use Windows, and try to be Win compatible. We aren't we all comlplaining when the government has non-competitive bids for systems with OS, or when they distribute and keep information in proprietary formats.

Another problem ... in recent years I se a lot of "me too" packages with Linux trying to keep up with Win products, but not so many differentiating packages or features. Why switch to Linux if it's similar but not compatible. We need a killer app that doesn't run on Win ... but that's hard to come by.

[Ex-Cyber]

You can't blame the hardware and s/w mfgrs for catering to 95% of the end-user market first either.

I don't blame hardware manufacturers for supporting Windows first. I blame many of them for providing a Windows driver instead of documentation, or otherwise locking up the documentation under such ridiculously restrictive nondisclosure agreements that an open-source driver is impossible without reverse engineering.

[Ant P.]

Is it Asus fault that Linux doesn't have the level of driver/device support and Windows?

Is it a hardware manufacturer's fault that their laptops use parts that don't work correctly in the OS they preinstall on them? Or is it the fault of the Invisible Marketshare Unicorn?

[Adarion]

Is it Asus fault that Linux doesn't have the level of driver/device support and Windows? Is it Asus fault that all sorts of widely used s/w is Windows only?

For the 1st part: partially yes. All these HW vendors could make sure and pressurize the chip people to deliver some specs. One cannot blame Linux(kernel team, SANE, CUPS,... development) for not havin reverse engineered these billions of different chips out there. You see the Noveau free 3d driver? I followed that when I still used my Geforce 3 hoping that this one would bring me grace and joy. Huh, I have ATIs now running here nicely with a free driver while those poor guys still have to celebrate a first HW rendered triangle. With no pushes from nvidia itself this will take many more years.

The problem is, and you can see that when you follow GregKH or Harald Welte for example that some HW vendors just do not understand free software. Somewhere either must be a lack of communication or some stupid folks in the decider level of an enterprise (latter is more often the case I guess).
Some enterprises fear to release a single spec. Either cause they think everybody else then would copy their HW - which ain't true or they violated *tada* some obsure patent *tada*.

But this is slowly changing after some large vendors gave specs or GPLed/free drivers. You can really have a system work out of box with Linux when there are specs for the machine.

Besides - I have enough experience with MS Windows to see that it also has a lot of driver issues. Be it crappy drivers bluescreening it, lack of support for older windows or newer windows versions for quite a bunch of HW.
Also driver installation ain't easy often, or vendors pack them with tons of useless stuff. Ever saw a download for Creative's soundcards? 200M package, while a driver should be at max 500K and maybe some userland prog to adjust this and that which is supported by default in windows sound volume manager.
So they had all sorts of buggy, useless and whatever badware along with the driver and one had a hard time to fuddle the pure driver out of that package.

For the 2nd part:
The argutment with the software is partially sadly true. But if you have a look around you'll find a lot of
* system independent software
* an equivalent part on Linux for a Windows software
* Wine/Cedega
Of course the lack of some special fields software is a p.i.t.a. and the lack of games. But then I hate most modern games also on Windows cause they have no real game design (same shit over and over again, no play-fun, just graphics) and a horrible copy... no... play protection which prevents the paying customer from playing.
The average user should be able to find something to fit his needs, besides the game side if one's into gaming.

But then it is a matter of Software vendors to port their stuff to Linux or make it at least more WINE friendly. Strangely they're not so picky when it comes to MacOS.

You can't blame the hardware and s/w mfgrs for catering to 95% of the end-user market first either.

Well, yes. But it wouldn't cost them to release some specs. As GregKH promised they will care for everything when given the specs. What can you want more?
Give them the specs, have them make and care for the driver in all eternity and have a whole platform supported and being seen as a Linux (BSD/...) friendly enterprise.

Well, heh, the only "con" would be that you cannot just stop supporting a hardware and fore people to buy your newest cards/whatever.

We haven't convinced enough ppl to give up MS products.

Yes and no.
I think it is not "our" fault. Didn't we cry loud enough? Nah. Really, when I ask if I can buy a laptop without windows I get to hear the strangest explanations why I can not.
Do some research and you'll quickly find out about MS and their contracts.

The average user sometimes does not even know about the alternatives. Their computer is running an OS called "Word" and such. Y'know. Even the minist...ress (?) for schools and science from Poland once said "no we don't use the text processor Linux".
Gah!

When you look at large towns like Munich in Germany for example, they give reports on the LinuxDays often about their state of migration. And (no) surprise the baddest problem often was just the people crying all the time when something new is being introduced.
Like: OMG. I cannot work. The button there is green instead of blue. And the internet is gone cause the blue "e" ist not visible. And so on.
It's a matter of high tolerance to suffering the Windows EULA and all W32 related weaknesses, a matter of inflexibility (and yes, it took me some time to get used with Linux when I had years of DOS/W32 experience) and these solid concrete walls Microsoft has built in the market (using FUD, evil contracts and sueing people for FAT patent stuff, see TomTom e.g.).

We aren't we all comlplaining when the government has non-competitive bids for systems with OS, or when they distribute and keep information in proprietary formats.

Because a lot of people think of Word DOC format as being a "standard". Every computer's OS is "word", you remember, right?
At least esp. in this public sector most visible change is happening today.

And I do complain.


Still I can blame Asus and have the right to dislike that behavior of going to bed with MS. And for threatening MS with this "we go Linux" just to lower the prices and then return gladly to MS and give Linux a slap in the face.
I'm also not fond of all these "enterprise X recommends Windows Vista business for its laptops" stuff you can read sometimes even when they give you the free choice. Of course they all receive a lot of money for this single sentence from MS.
Well I wouldn't be so upset if they really give you a choice. I mean everybody to his/her liking but I definitely want to buy my machines without Windows (and you can't build laptops from parts yet).
But see what happend in case of the EEEpc. Suddenly no Linux versions available anymore and the hardware often far inferior the the Windows version. Then whole model series without a Linux version. Nah, not nice.
(and besides I'm very picky with all these things havin that horrible mirror above the keyboard so there's barely a choice)

And some of the heard complaints that more Linux devices would be returned instead of the Windows ones is false rumor or due to the fact of shipping an inappropriate, misconfigured distribution with the HW. I mean, hey, if I'd put a plain windows without cfg and additional driver installation on a netbook I'm sure people would come complaining, too.

[bridgman]

Well, yes. But it wouldn't cost them to release some specs.

With respect, releasing specs is not inexpensive. Trust me on this. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but I don't think we help the cause by claiming that releasing specs is free or cheap. The winning argument is that on balance the benefits outweigh the costs.

[hdas]

Wow, I am so impressed. Very nice music btw .

Sarcasm aside, you don't do down so low and so cheap - looks like they want to give MS a stiff competition in that area too .

[Apopas]

Excellent post Adarion, very well written. Congrats!

The average user sometimes does not even know about the alternatives. Their computer is running an OS called "Word" and such. Y'know. Even the minist...ress (?) for schools and science from Poland once said "no we don't use the text processor Linux".
Gah!

That's so true... Along with a hundredof examples I remember one similar with this. I read a couple of years ago in a newspaper, a small article about Linux. WOW! I said. Linux article in greek newspaper... hadn't happen before... anyway the conclusion and what the journalist had comprehended was that "Linux is a computer company which makes a free version windows..." I'm not kidding and it was in one of country's most popular newspapers. The positive is that a lot of people read at least the word Linux for once in their life...

[Adarion]

"Linux is a computer company which makes a free version windows..."

LOL. Ouch. Yes, but that's normal on standard newspapers. They mix up such a lot of things.

I am a chemist and when I see the (local or not) newspapers and they write anything about computers or nature sciences or about Demonstrations against surveillance for example (remember Europeans here, today is election!) or even LARP (live action roleplaying) it is very often a horrible messup in information. No research/investigation done on the topic. The just catch a single word or phrase, sometimes out of context and build up on that. Or they tear facts til they break.
When my chemistry feeling hurts to read the mess (you know like that good old dihydrogenmonoxide being poisenous like hell ) ... whoa. I get sometimes really angry about the shit they write and which probably many people will believe without further asking.

I don't blame one for not having studied physics, chemistry or something or not being a kernel hacker. Of course everyone has his profession and that's good and fine. But if you talk about something one should have at least a little knowledge, esp. when you are going to publically speak, write or tube something.

So I wonder if the politics and economics and local events part is of the same quality like these columns about science or computers.
There's one comedian in Germany who made up a sentece which translates like: "if you don't have a clue then just and simply STFU".


But then under/misinformation seems to make a big deal in this world. On many things (e.g. the famous weapons of mass destruction).
And to get back on topic with that sentece I think MS/random-company is doing so again and again and against every kind of competitor, be it free or commercial.

[Adarion]

With respect, releasing specs is not inexpensive. Trust me on this. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but I don't think we help the cause by claiming that releasing specs is free or cheap. The winning argument is that on balance the benefits outweigh the costs.

Can you shed some light upon this? I mean I'd believe you, since you're sitting at the source but what makes a specs release expensive?
I assume that putting specs just together is some manwork but being done anyway since the company needs it anyway for e.g. the case of ATI-AMD fglrx/Catalyst. Is it more the rechereche for possible patent issues? Or something else?

[bridgman]

Can you shed some light upon this? I mean I'd believe you, since you're sitting at the source but what makes a specs release expensive?

I guess the main ones are :

- competitive issues; each vendor has strengths and weaknesses that balance out, but if you open up your strengths to competitors without having access to theirs in return then a couple of years later you can lose in the marketplace

- third party IP; there is some technology we have a right to use but not a right to publish

- DRM; we need to make sure we don't release information which could be used to attack the DRM implementations on other OSes -- this is probably the single most expensive part of the process since we have to model each of the likely attacks and determine the viability of each one

- patent litigation is a big expense for any technology company, particularly the "greenmail" type where a law firm will buy up a patent portfolio and then accuse companies of infringement in the hope that those companies will pay them to go away rather than incur the costs of a legal battle - if releasing specs triggers even one more case that's a huge cost

- the preparation and processing of patent applications takes a long time; while those are in the pipe you need to be really careful about what you document and publish

- preparing and reviewing the specs to consider all of the above factors takes a lot of time from our most senior technical people

I assume that putting specs just together is some manwork but being done anyway since the company needs it anyway for e.g. the case of ATI-AMD fglrx/Catalyst. Is it more the rechereche for possible patent issues? Or something else?

Remember that we colocate hardware and software developers so we can design and document the HW and SW at the same time; the kind of specs we use internally are perhaps 100x as detailed as the ones we publish. The internal design docs are also written years before the chip is actually released.

A big part of the spec-writing job is sifting through literally thousands of pages of hardware design documentation, picking out the portions which are relevent to outside driver developers, and distilling that down to something we can actually release to the public.