Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: More Linux Kernel Patches To Mimic Windows

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    529

    Default Backporting?

    Any word of these patches being backported to older kernels?

    Thanks!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    My proposal is for enthusiasts, like me, who are tired of bullshit.
    My proposal is that instead of purchasing hardware from vendors just because they have a good name that you should instead purchase your hardware from vendors that test and support Linux being installed on them, as well as having a good name. Linux has to mimic Windows because that is what vendors provide support and testing for. They are setup with the expectation that that is all you will ever have to deal with.


    That way you don't have to deal with the bullshit your tired of dealing with. It instead provides financial incentive for somebody else more effectively pursue solutions.. like fixing driver bugs and such.

    I always built my own desktops, but my last 3 laptops never had Windows installed on them. They shipped from the factory with Linux. And before you go off and complain about the smaller selection of hardware... realize that I never had issues like you are describing.

    Shame HW makers toe the Microsoft line when designing their devices. Why can't they make hardware that will work with ALL OS's not just Windows?
    Because they don't have too. Nobody is paying them to care.

    Why should they? What possible reason?

    There is no financial reward for doing it. Linux users do not seem to have any problem cobbling together a system from random bits and pieces and then cussing to each other on forums..

    Dell and HP at various points tried selling Linux hardware. These major OEMs are some of the few groups of people that major ODMs and chipset manufacturers actually listen to. They have clout, spend huge amounts of money, and if they want something then it happens. But you know what? Linux users piss and moan that all the possible combinations and options and models don't have Linux then they go out and purchase Windows systems anyways.


    So now Dell and HP don't sell Linux systems anymore, except for workstations... a market were people actually purchase Linux systems.
    like:
    http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...cision-m4600-n

    And these same Linux users are tired with their cobbled together systems nowadays just go out and purchase Apple laptops.

    Go figure.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    191

    Default hail, Lenovo!

    damn, i'm glad i've chosen Lenovo laptop for my girlfriend, and without Windows© on it, luckily. and it costed twice(!) as low compared to hardware with similar specs in my favorite local shops. ASPM worked great pre2.6.38, after and looks like it will work later (this is exactly the laptop with Atheros networking hw in it).

    a friend of hers needs laptop, i think i know what i will recommend, maybe even the same model. looks like HP, Toshiba, and for some degree, IBM and Dell are viable options too. everything else are just crap factories with rare exceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Wow.
    I had no idea. I imagined that since Intel is a member of the PCISIG, and a major producer of system components that they would be on top of this.
    I imagine the cause of these problems was this http://www.pcisig.com/specifications...2009-08-20.pdf. Once they made it optional they opened the door to hell (via the hot air coming from everyones pc).
    more shame for Intel. with them being pretty much main initiator of ACPI and PCI-E creation, you would expect their hardware to have perfect energy-saving capabilities but no. of course, this maybe a consequence of their shitty software and strange development practices.

    one thing that pissed me off recently is that their employees are against adding PPPoE support into connman and, subsequently, MeeGo. which is fuckng bullshit, since there are entire countries where you can have connectivity only via PPPoE most of the time, and while using a portable device you really will not go around with shitty SoHo-router in addition, unless you're retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    Microsoft didn't support ASPM at a high level until Windows 7 IIRC. The bug only exists because Linux was an early adopter of ASPM. The ASPM "regression" fix was just to leave the ASPM registers as set by the bios which is what windows probably did in versions prior to those that supported ASPM. A lot of bios vendors enabled ASPM so it would work as long as the OS didn't mess with it. It hardly seems like the hw manufacturers' fault.
    too true. this is the work of BIOS, after all. to configure that stuff. but again, with all that crap in most of the BIOSes, no wonder kernel devs don't trust them by default.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    89

    Default

    It's funny. Reading the previous post, if I got it right, it turns out that the "works for Windows" argument from BIOS manufacturers was actually that Microsoft developers had already taken their own care for this issue instead of relying on what the BIOS pretends about ASPM... So in the end it's "any OS maker" against the "careless BIOS manufacturers", right? We're all in the same boat in the end.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VinzC View Post
    It's funny. Reading the previous post, if I got it right, it turns out that the "works for Windows" argument from BIOS manufacturers was actually that Microsoft developers had already taken their own care for this issue instead of relying on what the BIOS pretends about ASPM... So in the end it's "any OS maker" against the "careless BIOS manufacturers", right? We're all in the same boat in the end.
    Microsoft has board makers do this stuff to make other operating systems not work quite right. Then they tweak Windows to work around all of the mines they have set.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •