id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

[Scali]

Thats an argument that OpenGL should be a well defined standard that the games should code against then, don't you agree?

Not sure what you mean. OpenGL is a well-defined standard. Problem is, it's just an API, and doesn't define how it should be implemented on an actual OS.
Aside from that... As already pointed out, if you want to develop games or other 3d accelerated software on OS X, linux, FreeBSD, Android etc, you don't have a choice but to use OpenGL. So what games 'should code against' is always a given on these platforms.

[ninez]

Yes, in a perfect world, everyone does exactly what Microsoft prescribes, and all hardware and drivers are perfect and bug-free.
But the world is not perfect, so the moment you allow third parties to sell hardware, write drivers or applications, you open up your platform to potential issues of resource hogging and whatnot.

I don't care what happens in some imaginary 'perfect world' ~ the Bottom line, Apple defines to 3rd-parties how to write software/drivers/etc for their platform FAR better than Microsoft does. End of story.

Apple's OS X is not immune to this (it somehow sounds like you think OS X has some unicorns and fairy dust that prevents the system from ever becoming unresponsive, crashing or whatever else. I know from experience that this is not the case), it's just that it is more rare on OS X, because of various reasons.

So now, you are yet again, misrepresenting my position - talking utter CRAP and then smacking it down - to give yourself some points... What a fucking joke you are. Did i EVER claim it was impossible to Crash a Mac?!?! - NO i did not. In fact, i actually gave an example where i did crash it. Where do you even come up with this stuff?!?! stop making up shit! it just makes you look obtuse.

One experience I had was with an Athlon system with VIA KT133A chipset. It just WOULD NOT run properly with low latency, even though I used the same Terratec EWX24/96 card that worked fine in various other systems, or some USB devices that would easily get ~3 ms on other systems. The problem was that VIA's chipset and drivers were just very poor, and ran into trouble at the 25 ms mark already.
On systems with Intel chipsets, things worked fine, both for PCI and USB devices.
Now, have you ever seen any Apples with VIA chipsets? And how many Apples have Intel chipsets?
So I think I know why Apple users would never run into this particular problem...

So what you are essentially saying then (which i have been saying all along) is that Apple typically designs a better platform for Proaudio than Windows/their OEMs typically provide <- Thanks for finally admitting that. Unlike you - i don't need to blame Windows, Apple or the hardware or make some other excuse. Microsoft defines how their os works, their driver model, APIs, etc, etc ~ and they work with the OEMs that ship computers with their 'seal of approval'... Apple IS better for Proaudio, typically. (just to make that clear, yet again!).

The beauty is, Microsoft doesn't have to.
ASIO is a standard defined by Steinberg, just like VST.
ASIO is more or less the audio equivalent of OpenGL in the sense that it is not the 'official' Microsoft API, but the Windows driver model is open enough that IHVs can implement these alternative standards themselves.
So like OpenGL, ASIO is not dependent on Microsoft at all. If you want the latest version, you just get the latest drivers from your IHV. ASIO is a direct interface to the driver, and does not rely on any common layer of functionality like DirectX or CoreAudio.

I am well-aware whom ASIO is developed by, the history, etc, etc. I never claimed ASIO was dependent on Microsoft, however the only platform it is used on is Windows (WineASIO in linux, is just handing it of to jack)...as a side note: Something interesting to point out though, being as you were constantly arguing in favor of OOTB - you do realize that OOTB Windows can't even be used for proaudio, while a Mac can... Also the 'real beauty' is that Mac's are largely designed with these goals in mind, so it's no surprise they tend to get it right out of the box, working across their hardware - while MS relies on a 3rd-parties, outlines bad driver development practices, puts their stamp of approval on junk hardware and since not designing their OS with professional audio in mind at all. Suffer from problems that Mac's typically won't.

I don't know where you get the idea that it is a beautiful thing. it's shit really.

I doubt it's the firewire device that's causing the issues, see above.
Connect expensive firewire device to el cheapo firewire port... and you have a recipe for disaster.
Apples don't have el cheapo firewire, ever.

Except for the fact it wasn't 'cheap hardware' not the device, not the MOBO (which was Intel with i7) and not the firewire port (which was not via). - this is the only thing you can say, really - blame it on the hardware. ~ you are very slippery! ..but your right, Apple doesn't ship cheap firewire interfaces - that's because they know many of their customers will be *using those ports*. MS and many OEMs do not give a shit - they just want your money, and since they are more concerned with Office/business and don't target proaudio in many cases, i don't think they care about quality in many cases.

...and again, another reason why Mac's tend to be better for Proaudio than Windows Machines, especially going with your own OOTB approach - which your such a big fan of

Firstly, developers don't have to deal with all those hardware configurations at all. Neither do users.
Secondly, even if these developers *did* have to test on various hardware configurations, I don't see how that affects users at all.

When did i assert either of the things you are saying above? i didn't. Developer/programmers writing those drivers may not have to test them on all of that hardware, but if they wan't people to buy and use their devices, it has to work properly ~ or they just lost a customer (for the long term) and rather than quoting one meaningless sentence and replying to it. could you please actually quote what your are responding to (?).

If it works, it works, right? Users could care less about how much trouble the developers went through. They just want a product that works.
And as the article states, as long as you don't have any 'rogue' drivers on your system:

IF it works...but what if it doesn't? sorry, you are out of luck, end user - should of bought a Mac, and not played 'Russian roulette' with Windows and the OEMs selling that junk ~ since you may be a non-techy musican who probably isn't aware of Via chipsets being bunk, etc... Rogue driver is pretty vague, how is john-doe musician going to know the difference? (hint: he wouldn't). Basically, what you are driving at is that Musicians should focus more on the underpinnings of Windows and beware of the OEMs and know all of the specifics of what chipsets are in their computer, rather than just making music. Sounds awesome! ~ No wonder Apple is the preferred platform!

So that already completely debunks your claim of CoreAudio being "vastly superior" and delivering "much lower latencies".
I on the other hand merely said they were about equal in terms of latencies, which this article supports just fine.

Except you are mis-quoting me YET AGAIN. What i actually said is that i think CoreAudio is superior to Windows audio subsystems and that OOTB in MacOSX - i get lower latencies (which is ENTIRELY true, ASIO is a 3rd-party's product). I love how fallacious almost everything coming out of your mouth is... what a crock of shit. you are either incompetent, stupid or smart but extremely deceitful - take your pick :\

So on a properly functioning system, ASIO works fine. Which means that neither Windows nor ASIO have any inherent problems that prevent them from reaching low latencies. This is supported by the article you're quoting.
Now clearly you're walking a *very* thin line when you try to blame Microsoft for some rogue third-party drivers (you even claimed Windows has broken scheduling and such... not at all, because if they did, *no* device would *ever* work properly with ASIO, but clearly your article says this is not the case).

I'm not blaming Microsoft and we have been through this. Apple provides a 'proper way to do things' when developing on their platform, Microsoft is much looser, which can lead to problems in their drivers. I also NEVER said there scheduling was quote 'broken', both the Article and myself cited that;

“There’s a difference in the way the OS handles task scheduling,” he said. “On Windows, a degree of cooperation between the drivers on the system is required. If any one of them doesn’t play by the rules (which are not enforced by the OS), the performance of the entire system is degraded (DPC latency). This interference from other drivers can mean your driver performs poorly on some systems—no matter what you do! The Mac architecture does not suffer from this problem, making performance a bit more predictable.”

that doesn't mean it is broken, it just means Mac's don't have this problem. Again, stop being so disingenuous, i have a better memory than you apparently and see right through your fallacious bullshit. end of story.

When I say 'linux', I mean linux, as in the official linux branch, not 'rt-linux'.
Clearly, a custom version for realtime usage would have more strict timing than any non-realtime system, by default (at the cost of higher CPU usage). Windows is not a realtime system, nor does it try to be. It is however a 'near-realtime' system, and a good one at that, since unlike linux for example, you can do most (near-)realtime audio/video processing out-of-the-box with Windows.
In fact, my company specializes in realtime video processing/projection. We aim to support Windows, OS X and linux, so I think I have a reasonable idea of how the various systems work under such circumstances.

When we are talking about low-latency systems built using linux - we are talking about rt-linux not 'generic' linux, and as someone who felt it was necessary to point out to me that those were ingo's patches (albeit outdated info) you knew what i was talking about... You are just back-peddling, just like you did before (and now again) with your OOTB nonsense, alternative kernel nonsense and unofficial patch nonsense. ~ it all a load of crap. You are just slippery and just VERY dishonest. As i said before 'Windows can't replicate my system OOTB (and probably not at all).

You run any system at extremely low latencies / small samples (even in Windows or Mac) you will experience higher cpu usage, You claiming to the contrary is BS - i have seen this with my own eyes countless times over many many years... I don't give a shit what your supposed 'credentials' are, you have been wrong about so much crap with so many fallacious comments(including the above appeal to authority), i can't take you seriously at all. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

So no, I never said anything about companies using rt-linux, and I suppose rt-linux could work just fine, since it is designed for low latencies, as long as they put enough CPU-power in their systems.
Doesn't rule out that they may be able to do the same thing with another OS using less powerful CPUs though.

Like i said before, Go tell that to Muse Research, Harrison Consoles, etc. Tell them to use MacOSX or Windows in their products over RT-linux. and FYI - Muse Reseach's products don't have have crazy CPUs - they are mobile/laptop CPUs - but they wouldn't be using Windows in their products, even if it did allow them to use 'less powerful CPUs'.

However, I found that in general, the choice for linux in such embedded systems is because it is the simplest solution: they can just grab the sourcecode and modify it to their needs, rather than writing something from scratch. I've worked at companies that used linux for their custom hardware for the same reason. And our company may build a linux live DVD in the future, because it would make for an easy turn-key solution.
Windows simply does not give us that option. Hardly a technical consideration.
So I wouldn't be so naive as to think that every company using linux is some kind of confirmation of linux' absolute technical superiority.

Windows is limiting, i'll agree with that. Now, that we've gotten that out of the way, Riddle me this,then ~ why were you telling me (and arguing) that i should be running my VSTi's in Windows over linux when CLEARLY it is NOT suited for my purposes..??! That was completely moronic. You are forgetting the part where you claimed that Wine was for people whom wanted to run their 'hated' windows software, even though it is actually WAY smarter for me to NOT do what you were saying i should be doing (aka: using Windows over linux). I also cited the success of a company like Muse Research - since they are doing essentially the same thing - and make VERY high-quality products that are used by a great many professionals. They are a great example, after all - of why your arguments are silly ~ My considerations were both technical and logical...Your considerations are based on uninformed junk...

Disabling/removing hardware does not qualify as 'tweaking Windows'.

Strawman. I clearly said in both instances 'tweak Windows' NOT 'tweak workstation FOR Windows'. But you already knew this, since before hand you told me and I quote " if you need to tweak a Windows machine for better low-latency with today's hardware, you're doing something quite wrong" ... so clearly, you were WELL-AWARE that i was not talking about tweaking hardware.

Who said anything about disabling/removing hardware??? i sure as hell didn't. They tune the OS - not remove hardware (but do use high-quality parts) - and YES windows can be tweaked - but why do i need to tell you this, you're the expert, right??? and since you are the expert, it really does beg the question -> how come you didn't even consider that these companies actually modify some of windows settings to improve it for their more specific task???? Can you explain this to me, please??? because from where i am sitting, you really come off as not knowing much about this stuff...

someone as 'knowledgable' as you, who owns a cutting-edge company making (near)realtime audio/video apps/products would surely already know all of this stuff. But i guess you do not, and probably shouldn't even be arguing about it, in the first place.

[Scali]

I don't care what happens in some imaginary 'perfect world' ~ the Bottom line, Apple defines to 3rd-parties how to write software/drivers/etc for their platform FAR better than Microsoft does. End of story.

No they don't. But what would you know? Did you ever write a driver for any of these platforms? Because I have.

So what you are essentially saying then (which i have been saying all along) is that Apple typically designs a better platform for Proaudio than Windows/their OEMs typically provide <- Thanks for finally admitting that.

Lolwat, Apple uses off-the-shelf Intel CPUs and chipsets, like most OEMs do. AMD-based machines are rare, and non-Intel chipsets for Intel CPUs died out years ago because Intel stopped licensing the bus on their newer CPUs.
The machine I described was decidedly a-typical and low-budget.

Also the 'real beauty' is that Mac's are largely designed with these goals in mind

The obvious flaw in your reasoning is that you think that 'pro audio' is somehow some specific functionality that you can just 'put in your OS'.
It's not. Pro audio software is just software, and pro audio hardware is just hardware.
The only requirement is that of low-latency I/O.
Now while Microsoft does not specifically target pro audio, they *do* target low-latency I/O, since it is a more common problem, and proper low-latency I/O will make the OS suitable to a large variety of software, which Microsoft *DOES* target.
You just don't seem to see the bigger picture.

For Apple, audio is one of their niches, so they market their machine to maintain or even extend their marketshare there. Doesn't mean there's anything more than marketing in it.

Apple doesn't ship cheap firewire interfaces - that's because they know many of their customers will be *using those ports*.

Apple was committed to firewire early on, they saw it as a superior solution to USB.
The PC-world instead went for the cheaper USB option, and as such, firewire interfaces were rare, and usually cheap third-party solutions were added to systems.
Apple does not cater to the budget market, so they can afford to make their machines more expensive, and add things like Firewire and SCSI interfaces.
Such PCs have always existed as well, if you look at the more expensive workstation series from Dell, HP or Compaq. It's just not what most people buy, because they go for the bargain basement stuff. Gee, not surprising if a PC of half the cost of an Apple doesn't quite work as well.

MS and many OEMs do not give a shit - they just want your money, and since they are more concerned with Office/business and don't target proaudio in many cases, i don't think they care about quality in many cases.

Actually, the 64-bit version of Logic was one of the applications that Microsoft used to promote Windows XP x64.

Except you are mis-quoting me YET AGAIN.

Not at all: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...096#post281096
"MacOSX OOTB has much lower latency than windows (and a superior audio subsystem aka: CoreAudio)"

The out-of-the-box thing is utterly meaningless obviously, since you do not need to make any changes to your Windows configuration at all to get low latency. All you need is a proper ASIO device.

Oh btw, I didn't see your rant earlier on guitar fx.
Sadly for you, I'm actually a 7-string playing shredder. Playing fast, REALLY fast is what I do.
You're also wrong about older guitar fx being slower. If anything, they were faster, because they were mostly analog. It's mostly the early digital modelers that can be rather annoying in terms of latency and response. But not my PC setup. Plays just fine.
Besides, guitarists generally play over real amps, not digital crap, so they know what NO latency is like.

So, nice try, but as usual, completely uninformed and mostly your wrong assumptions.

You run any system at extremely low latencies / small samples (even in Windows or Mac) you will experience higher cpu usage

As usual, you don't quite seem to understand the context here, so let me point out the obvious:
On linux, if you tweak it for 'lower latencies', you are actually reducing the timeslice length of the entire system, meaning you get more CPU usage *all the time* because the system performs more context switches per second.
On Windows you do not need to modify the timeslice length at all, you do not need to 'supercharge' the thread scheduler to make it more responsive. Out-of-the-box settings are good enough for < 1 ms latencies.
As a result, the CPU usage is the same as it always was.

Like i said before, Go tell that to Muse Research, Harrison Consoles, etc. Tell them to use MacOSX or Windows in their products over RT-linux. and FYI - Muse Reseach's products don't have have crazy CPUs - they are mobile/laptop CPUs - but they wouldn't be using Windows in their products, even if it did allow them to use 'less powerful CPUs'.

Right, once again you don't quite get what I'm saying. I said that if it works for them, then why not.
Also, obviously as long as your processing requirements are low enough, then so are your CPU needs. Even my phone can easily run most of the VSTs that I used 10 years ago. That however does not change the fact that the CPU overhead may be higher than with another system. That's all I said. But apparently you are having trouble separating absolute and relative characteristics.

Who said anything about disabling/removing hardware??? i sure as hell didn't.

Yes you did, but you probably weren't aware of it.
You quoted those statements about DPC overhead in Windows and all that.
The only way to get rid of that DPC overhead is to disable the device whose driver is causing this. Hence, disabling/removing hardware.

The longer you rant on, the less convincing you sound...

[ninez]

No they don't. But what would you know? Did you ever write a driver for any of these platforms? Because I have.

You need to back this up, without doing so - i don't believe you in the slightest, because quite frankly you've been soooo frickin' slippery, dishonest, fallacious and generally come across as being full of shit. ~ and you haven't even tried to argue any of that because you KNOW it is the truth. (and you've had plenty of oppertunities that most people would have taken) ..plus, you haven't backup any of your other claims, only asserted I worte this, i run this company, yatta yatta... ~ it's all literally MEANINGLESS...

Lolwat, Apple uses off-the-shelf Intel CPUs and chipsets, like most OEMs do. AMD-based machines are rare, and non-Intel chipsets for Intel CPUs died out years ago because Intel stopped licensing the bus on their newer CPUs.
The machine I described was decidedly a-typical and low-budget.

I don't care about non-intel chips that died out years ago - that has zitch to do with anything. The fact is Apple has better quality control of their products and it shows. I never argued that they weren't using Intel or XYZ component....

The obvious flaw in your reasoning is that you think that 'pro audio' is somehow some specific functionality that you can just 'put in your OS'.
It's not. Pro audio software is just software, and pro audio hardware is just hardware.
The only requirement is that of low-latency I/O.

Does Microsoft include ASIO, or VST or a DAW (ie: software) NO they do not. Apple DOES via CoreAudio (and all of it's components) and most Mac's that i've purchased come with a DAW and other audio tools. So they DO put that functionality in their OS in terms of software. So Yes, they do put some of the proaudio stuff right in there. As far as Hardware is concerned (in the context of being able to use for Proaudio purposes) they make sure their shit works - many of the OEMs that ship windows may or may NOT.

Now while Microsoft does not specifically target pro audio, they *do* target low-latency I/O, since it is a more common problem, and proper low-latency I/O will make the OS suitable to a large variety of software, which Microsoft *DOES* target.
You just don't seem to see the bigger picture.

That isn't the same thing, and you know it. It isn't a question of 'seeing the big picture' - Microsoft doesn't target Proaudio specifically, while Apple does. OOTB i am ready to go with a Mac - with Windows, no. I have to rely on 3rd parties to make that happen. They may target low-latency I/O - but that doesn't change that fact that they don't target proaudio while Apple does. You can try to twist things around all that you like - you are simply wrong. Just like you've been wrong about nearly everything else you've claimed throughout this whole thread to me.

For Apple, audio is one of their niches, so they market their machine to maintain or even extend their marketshare there. Doesn't mean there's anything more than marketing in it.

Except that they actually develop a lot of Proaudio/multimedia software and provide the frameworks for them, included in MacOSX. That isn't all 'marketing' - that is creating/providing the software and targeting that market BEYOND just some marketing ploys. They make sure there platform is better for this kind of thing, because it is an important area of business for them..

Apple was committed to firewire early on, they saw it as a superior solution to USB.
The PC-world instead went for the cheaper USB option, and as such, firewire interfaces were rare, and usually cheap third-party solutions were added to systems.
Apple does not cater to the budget market, so they can afford to make their machines more expensive, and add things like Firewire and SCSI interfaces.
Such PCs have always existed as well, if you look at the more expensive workstation series from Dell, HP or Compaq. It's just not what most people buy, because they go for the bargain basement stuff. Gee, not surprising if a PC of half the cost of an Apple doesn't quite work as well.

I am well-aware of Apple's history with Firewire... And actually, most people i know who plan on doing things like Proaudio or Video-editing don't buy 'budget bargain basement junk'... Not even in the example i have used earlier in this thread, that you were trying to claim must have had via chipsets or some nonsense... I could find out how much that machine costed, but i can pretty much assure you it was more than a Mac.

Actually, the 64-bit version of Logic was one of the applications that Microsoft used to promote Windows XP x64.

Logic sucked in Windows, don't know if you ever used it...probably not, i am guessing. it was an unstable mess... I used to use Logic 8/9 on Mac though... I did however see Logic in Windows in those days and it was a sad state of affairs. Around then (or maybe a year before), I had also used Protools in Windows at a friends, but I Owned a Mac with Protools. We both agreed the Mac/protools combo was WAY better, and his machine actually had better specs...

Not at all: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...096#post281096
"MacOSX OOTB has much lower latency than windows (and a superior audio subsystem aka: CoreAudio)"

The out-of-the-box thing is utterly meaningless obviously, since you do not need to make any changes to your Windows configuration at all to get low latency. All you need is a proper ASIO device.

Yet, that doesn't change the fact that you totally misquoted me, were being fallacious and a totasl deceptive little snake. You also didn't need to quote that - being as i already did. CoreAudio is superior to Windows Audio subsystems, and without a proper ASIO device - you have no low-latency proaudio experience in Windows. The fact is you made some dumb fallacious argument up - that didn't correspond to what i said - plain and simple.

Oh btw, I didn't see your rant earlier on guitar fx.
Sadly for you, I'm actually a 7-string playing shredder. Playing fast, REALLY fast is what I do.
You're also wrong about older guitar fx being slower. If anything, they were faster, because they were mostly analog. It's mostly the early digital modelers that can be rather annoying in terms of latency and response. But not my PC setup. Plays just fine.
Besides, guitarists generally play over real amps, not digital crap, so they know what NO latency is like.

So, nice try, but as usual, completely uninformed and mostly your wrong assumptions.

I was referring to older digital guitar FX - i wasn't comparing Apples (digital) to Oranges (analog). I don't see how you think i was either, when i did mention analog -> i was only talking about older analog synth's like moog's which afaik do have more latency than my keyboard. It's actually really funny that you are dumb enough to think i was refering to analog fx boards/pedals. lol.

..and FYI guitarists and all musicians should be aware of latency - the furhter you move away from the speaker the more latency there will be ~ all musicians encounter latency (whether they realize it or not) there is no such thing as ZERO latency while you are plugged into your guitar amp, stage, acoustically, etc. what a dumbass you are.

As usual, you don't quite seem to understand the context here, so let me point out the obvious:
On linux, if you tweak it for 'lower latencies', you are actually reducing the timeslice length of the entire system, meaning you get more CPU usage *all the time* because the system performs more context switches per second.
On Windows you do not need to modify the timeslice length at all, you do not need to 'supercharge' the thread scheduler to make it more responsive. Out-of-the-box settings are good enough for < 1 ms latencies.
As a result, the CPU usage is the same as it always was.

Execpt for the fact that you aren't even addressing what i said. I said if you reduce/use smaller samples CPU load is going to be higher, regardless of OS. I know when my machine idles in (rt)Linux my CPU usage is slightly higher (which i already said a long time ago - apparently, you don't remember that), but i also know that it is far more deterministic/predictable and can reach deadlines well below Windows running on the same hardware... it's also far more reliable.

Right, once again you don't quite get what I'm saying. I said that if it works for them, then why not.
Also, obviously as long as your processing requirements are low enough, then so are your CPU needs. Even my phone can easily run most of the VSTs that I used 10 years ago. That however does not change the fact that the CPU overhead may be higher than with another system. That's all I said. But apparently you are having trouble separating absolute and relative characteristics.

I did actually misread what you wrote, there. Sorry about that. But regardless, it (the overhead) is Negligible and thus not a big deal.

Yes you did, but you probably weren't aware of it.
You quoted those statements about DPC overhead in Windows and all that.
The only way to get rid of that DPC overhead is to disable the device whose driver is causing this. Hence, disabling/removing hardware.

No not in the context of what you were replying too, i wasn't. Let me refresh your memory, okay you disingenuous little snake;

and when you claimed shortly after that 'i must be doing something wrong, for tweaking windows'

Disabling/removing hardware does not qualify as 'tweaking Windows'.

And if you care to go back and read what this was in reference to - which AFAIK wasn't what you are now claiming it was - but was in fact tuning Windows (not by disabling hardware), and the whole part about companies like ADK tuning the OS. Stop being so dishonest, i not only remmber but can easily go back and read my old posts - i CLEARLY was not talking about the quote from the articles or USB device manuals recommending to disable wireless or something - you trying now to say i was, is not only MORONIC but just continues to show how full of shit and deceptive you are. Nice try, but you have rocks in your head thinking you can peddle such BS. epic fail.

The longer you rant on, the less convincing you sound...

You haven't been convincing in any shape or form (at all). you've literally been incorrect about almost everything you have said in this thread, with fe minor exceptions/// You have said fallacious comments (and not even denied or tried to show that they weren't - because you know they were), you have tried to scam your way out of any situation that it was pretty obvious that you didn't know what you were talking about, or you just ignored them (for the same reason).

you're pathetic!

frankly, it doesn't matter if you think i am 'convincing' ~ you're full of shit!

[squirrl]

1. Xorg is a major problem on older hardware
2. Too many 'Won't Fix' bugs in distributions
3. Up-stream is another term for, "We can't fix it"

I'm getting to the point I run CentOS only.

Back before Slackware jumped on the Good-ship Insanity (KDE 4) you were guaranteed a sane release.



Get a hacK0r out of an out-house and show him a toilet and you still get the same old sh3t.

--
l33t speak originated in the 80's from BuCk rOGeRs

[ворот93]

Sounds exactly like Linus Torvalds' attitude...

You are trying to argue with a fanboy. I have added him to ignore list, suggest that you do so as well.

[Scali]

...

You know, if most of your posts weren't pathetic insults, some people might actually bother to read what you're saying, and may even take you seriously.

[ворот93]

you're pathetic!

frankly, it doesn't matter if you think i am 'convincing' ~ you're full of shit!

Is THIS Linux user base? Then it's good that Linux has <1% on workstations: <1% of people are arrogant immature fanboys unable to listen to outsider's opinion.

I used to be a Linux advocate. But seeing the 'general population' in this thread makes me feel less and less pro-FOSS.

Have a nice day.

[ChrisXY]

Is THIS Linux user base?

A tiny, tiny part of it.

Then it's good that Linux has <1% on workstations:

You know, there are millions of PCs with linux on it.

<1% of people are arrogant immature fanboys unable to listen to outsider's opinion.

How many people you don't like have you seen here in the phoronix forums? A dozen? Out of how many? Millions of users?

I used to be a Linux advocate. But seeing the 'general population' in this thread makes me feel less and less pro-FOSS.

I'm considering invoking Godwin's law...

[Scali]

<1% of people are arrogant immature fanboys unable to listen to outsider's opinion.

Or even insiders.
I would say nVidia is very much an insider, having the longest and most successful history of supporting linux. But does Linus Torvalds listen? Nope.
Or Ingo Molnar, a linux kernel developer and Red Hat employee: https://plus.google.com/109922199462...ts/HgdeFDfRzNe

I myself don't feel like an insider, since I want to distance myself from people like Linus Torvalds and the linux community in general.
However, I *do* support the platform. I maintain various open source projects, which have full linux support (among other OSes, such as OS X and FreeBSD). So I am an 'insider' in the sense that I develop for linux (both FOSS and closed-source). Then again, I license my open source stuff under the BSD license, which again is probably not 'good enough'.