Why not Linux

syklops

but the code needs to be written differently to interface with different operating systems. so what are you sighing about, this is a fact, a device driver needs to be written specifically for an operating system.

So why does NDISwrapper work then if they are so different?

gimme5minutes

syklops wrote: »

So why does NDISwrapper work then if they are so different?

is the clue not in the name - NDISwrapper. From wikipedia

NDISwrapper works by implementing the Windows kernel and NDIS APIs, and dynamically linking the Windows drivers to this implementation

as it says on ubunutu's documentation - https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/Ndiswrapper

Ndiswrapper can be a challenge to get working and even then the results are generally less than desirable.

If at all possible consider purchasing a replacement instead.

so its a hack that is wrapping the wireless networking related parts of the windows kernel and NDIS.

a device driver written for windows will not run on linux and vice versa. this is basic computer architecture fact. if you can get a device to work using a hack that wraps windows code then that is a good option if all else fails.

syklops

I wasnt asking why does it work. I was asking if as you say code for Windows is completely different to code for linux, why is it possible for a program like ndiswrapper to take windows object files and use them as linux drivers? The answer is because they are not so different.

Anyway, our discussion is started to look like:

"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is times a thousand! Jinx! No comebacks!

So in the words of Duncan Ballatine, I'm out.

BostonB

The answer to why don't people use Linux is, this thread.
For others why do people use Linux is, this thread.

Lol

c_man

bpb101 wrote: »

what wrong with linux that you wont use it.

I really don't feel like fiddling around with drivers and such just to set up a pair of speakers properly. That kinda stuff, coupled with the gaming issue.

I have a lot of respect for Linux, I just find it too fiddly for anything approaching "home" use.

croo

c_man wrote: »

I just find it too fiddly for anything approaching "home" use.

Unless it's running your phone, tv or multimedia centre perhaps?

PS. I often wonder why there is a windows forum on boards... I mean it is sooo easy to use I cannot understand how anyone is having any questions or problems.

humbert

Why not linux is a bit like asking why not Dvorak. If Windows didn't come with 99% of PCs it would be long dead.

BostonB

humbert wrote: »

Why not linux is a bit like asking why not Dvorak. If Windows didn't come with 99% of PCs it would be long dead.

Dunno about that. It still sells in vast quantities. I reckon most of the people who build their own PC's put Windows in it too.

croo

BostonB wrote: »

Dunno about that. It still sells in vast quantities. I reckon most of the people who build their own PC's put Windows in it too.

Are there any numbers available?

BostonB

croo wrote: »

Are there any numbers available?

I couldn't find a breakdown which I assume you are looking for. Retails vs OEM sales with PC's. In total the figures are about 400m or about 4 billion in revenue.

ChubbyHubby

croo wrote: »

Unless it's running your phone, tv or multimedia centre perhaps?

People don't need to configure and fiddle with settings/drivers on their phones. It's usually preinstalled and preconfigured. Same with bought in multimedia centres. People who build their own are obviously people who wants to fiddle with this stuff. Plus you usually only spend time doing it once and don't have to worry about setup and compatibility with other devices in the future. No real need ever to update kernel etc. It's a little different to pc home use.

PS. I often wonder why there is a windows forum on boards... I mean it is sooo easy to use I cannot understand how anyone is having any questions or problems.

Different skillsets on different type of users. Also, things becomes easier the more exposed you are to it. Linux is not hard to use or setup once you've had enough exposure to it either but it can still remain a pain in the butt to get everything working. End of the day, personal preference even if linux is more stable/better/nerdier/sexier/makes you feel manlier.

ChubbyHubby

I've used unix and linux systems in college and in work since the mid 90s. They make great servers and development desktops but I don't find them to be great home pc desktops. There are too many apps and games I use that are on windows only. Home pcs don't need the stability and I can't really remember the last time I have my old xp laptop crash on me because of the OS and not some hardware problem and my main pc is on windows7 which never crashes. Girlfriend is much more familiar with windows. Linux does not offer me anything I can't already do on windows.

Johnboy1951

ChubbyHubby wrote: »

I've used unix and linux systems in college and in work since the mid 90s. They make great servers and development desktops but I don't find them to be great home pc desktops. There are too many apps and games I use that are on windows only. Home pcs don't need the stability and I can't really remember the last time I have my old xp laptop crash on me because of the OS and not some hardware problem and my main pc is on windows7 which never crashes. Girlfriend is much more familiar with windows. Linux does not offer me anything I can't already do on windows.

I can truthfully say that Windows does not offer me anything I can't already do on Linux.

That does not make either OS more suitable for anyone else.

Most users I have observed do not use any apps on Windows for which there are no equivalents on Linux.

humbert

BostonB wrote: »

Dunno about that. It still sells in vast quantities. I reckon most of the people who build their own PC's put Windows in it too.

I would not contest that at all, but the number of people in that position is small and so will never affect Windows' dominance.

If everyone had to choose what operating system to put on their PC upon receiving it then the numbers of non-windows users would increase steadily. Hardware manufactures would have to worry about sales by only supporting Windows, as would software manufacturers.

Linux is free and very open, so people don't need a good reason to use it. They just need the choice and no good reason not to use it.

BostonB

humbert wrote: »

...no good reason not to use it.

Eh? Lots of reasons. They don't need to for a a start.

Like I said earlier the biggest exposure consumers had to Linux was on the netbooks. But these days they all seem to have Windows. That seems to suggest that simply rolling it out to consumers isn't going to win them over. I've never seen stats on that though so I'm only guessing.

Groinshot

Can I make a point here, that asking for help on a linux forum is like talking to a brick wall.
"I'm having trouble with X and Y"
"try man -x, man -y"

"Eh..."
"Ok, try do such and such(bunch of terminal commands) and attach a log file"
"eh, how do I do that?"
"main such and such"
*sigh*

croo

BostonB wrote: »

Like I said earlier the biggest exposure consumers had to Linux was on the netbooks.

I would say their android phone is more likely the biggest.

There are many people happily using linux on the tvs, routers & other devices in their homes. They might not know it, or in the case of routers rarely if ever need to interface with it, but they are using it.

I'd say the home PC is a beast of the past and fighting over what OS is on it doesn't really matter any more. With games consoles, smartphones & tablets. I would bet that relatively few of the home pcs that expire in the future will be replaced - by PCs.

croo

BostonB wrote: »

I couldn't find a breakdown which I assume you are looking for. Retails vs OEM sales with PC's. In total the figures are about 400m or about 4 billion in revenue.

yeah I was curious about the sales of retail, boxed, windows. Usually the hardware requirements on the next windows version are considerably greater than the last generation of hardware so upgrading the windows OS is not, in my experience, a great idea. But I wondered how many try it, I would have thought in the grand scheme of MS sales is a fairly small number!?

BostonB

Windows 7 and 8 run fine on older hardware. Better than vista and arguably better then XP.

BostonB

croo wrote: »

I would say their android phone is more likely the biggest.

There are many people happily using linux on the tvs, routers & other devices in their homes. They might not know it, or in the case of routers rarely if ever need to interface with it, but they are using it.

I'd say the home PC is a beast of the past and fighting over what OS is on it doesn't really matter any more. With games consoles, smartphones & tablets. I would bet that relatively few of the home pcs that expire in the future will be replaced - by PCs.

Be that as it may. I think you can take it as given that this thread was about the Desktop OS.

bpb101 wrote: »

...
People who use windows and mac. what wrong with linux that you wont use it....

humbert

BostonB wrote: »

Eh? Lots of reasons. They don't need to for a a start.

Like I said earlier the biggest exposure consumers had to Linux was on the netbooks. But these days they all seem to have Windows. That seems to suggest that simply rolling it out to consumers isn't going to win them over. I've never seen stats on that though so I'm only guessing.

I suppose managing 14,000 posts in 5 years doesn't leave much time for reading posts before replying to them.

Not needing to use Linux isn't a good reason not to use Linux.

I put forward the hypothetical situation where PCs don't come preloaded with Windows, so more people would try Linux, as it's free. Therefore there would inevitable be more awareness about Linux.

On the point about netbooks, which is unrelated to my hypothetical situation, I would say that most people's knowledge of Linux comes from friends who have used it or reading about it on the web. I would not think that people would judge Linux based on their experience with a netbook any more than based on their phone or TV or media server.

Also, to suggest that because Linux was used on netbooks and netbooks were not popular means that Linux would not be popular if it came installed on PCs is a bewilderingly nonsensical argument.

ChubbyHubby

humbert wrote: »

Not needing to use Linux isn't a good reason not to use Linux.

Sorry but why is that? Because Linux is the bee's knees? Microsoft is evil? Why must everyone use Linux even if they don't need it?

I put forward the hypothetical situation where PCs don't come preloaded with Windows, so more people would try Linux, as it's free. Therefore there would inevitable be more awareness about Linux.

I can argue that maybe more people will buy a mac. Microsoft will probably price the home edition a lot cheaper so buyers will ask shop to preinstall with cheap Microsoft OS.

Most people really don't care what OS it is as long as it does what they are buying it for such as checking email, web surfing, edit docs/picture, watch movies, listen music. Most people also don't want to install any OS or reinstall it with Linux/windows and they wouldn't really know how to or care to find out. That's sort of the reality why people don't use linux.

Johnboy1951

Groinshot wrote: »

Can I make a point here, that asking for help on a linux forum is like talking to a brick wall.
"I'm having trouble with X and Y"
"try man -x, man -y"

"Eh..."
"Ok, try do such and such(bunch of terminal commands) and attach a log file"
"eh, how do I do that?"
"main such and such"
*sigh*

I can only presume that you mean a forum of a Linux distro ...... and all I can say is that if that is the attitude you regularly meet then it is past time you changed the distro you are using.

In my experience a RTFM response, is a rarity.

Of course if the problem is not explained ... such as "I'm having trouble with X and Y" .... it is no wonder it gets strange responses!
People have more to do with their time than trying to figure out what some lazy poster, asking for help, omitted.

There is always the alternative to pay someone to do the work for you .....

BostonB

humbert wrote: »

I suppose managing 14,000 posts in 5 years doesn't leave much time for reading posts before replying to them.

Not needing to use Linux isn't a good reason not to use Linux.

I put forward the hypothetical situation where PCs don't come preloaded with Windows, so more people would try Linux, as it's free. Therefore there would inevitable be more awareness about Linux.

On the point about netbooks, which is unrelated to my hypothetical situation, I would say that most people's knowledge of Linux comes from friends who have used it or reading about it on the web. I would not think that people would judge Linux based on their experience with a netbook any more than based on their phone or TV or media server.

Also, to suggest that because Linux was used on netbooks and netbooks were not popular means that Linux would not be popular if it came installed on PCs is a bewilderingly nonsensical argument.

Why can't you have a normal discussion without making personal digs Not needing anything is a good reason not to have it. Be a it car, iPhone whatever. Thats its free isn't always enough of a reason either. Obviously or free software would be dominant, and it isn't, not on the desktop.

I didn't say netbooks weren't popular I said linux on netbooks wasn't popular. hence netbooks are all windows these days and netbooks are still popular. At least they are still being sold in the shops. But I don't see any of them with Linux.

You can buy PC's with no OS. People choose not to. You can buy them pre-installed with Linux. People choose not to. Its just not popular. So that idea defunct. There's obviously more to it than that.

croo

BostonB wrote: »

Thats its free isn't always enough of a reason either. Obviously or free software would be dominant, and it isn't, not on the desktop.

Do you mean free of open source? There is plenty of software that if free & Free (open source) that is popular .. even dominant. The one the springs to mind is Firefox. Or do we only speak of OS now?

BostonB

croo wrote: »

Do you mean free of open source? There is plenty of software that if free & Free (open source) that is popular .. even dominant. The one the springs to mind is Firefox. Or do we only speak of OS now?

Desktop OS. Server OS would be a different story.

But you raise an interesting point. The browser is an interesting parallel. Its not pre installed but is successful.

But theres a plethora of angles to consider for the browser and the OS. I don't there are simple answers.

PrzemoF

The thread is more alive than I'd expected it to be

Anyway, for an average linux user is not important if linux has 1%, 5% or 75% of the market. The most important is that the vendors are joining linux foundation (even nvidia did that), releasing hardware specs and helping to develop drivers. The rest is just a matter of time...

I bought a tablet some time ago - there are 3 symbols on the box: ms flag, apple and ..... happy Tux.


Resistance is futile...

Johnboy1951

There appears to be underlying assumptions running through this thread which it might be worthwhile reconsidering.

1.) "Linux" appears to be regarded as some other form of MS Windows (from the corporate sense).
Unlike Windows and others, Linux does not need particular 'market share' to be successful.
It is already successful, beyond the wildest dreams of the originator.
It continues to develop at breakneck speed.

So maybe the criteria for 'successful' should be reconsidered ..... it is not the number of desktop PC installations, IMO.

2.) Everybody who uses Linux wants to promote it above every other OS ...... while true for a vocal minority, there are millions of users who rarely get into discussions about the OS.
Personally I do not care what OS my brother/neighbour/uncle Tom are using. It does not impact me in the least.
Because of the advantages I might see for those people, I will inform them of the alternative; even offer to set it up ... provided they have a commitment to deal with the differences, I will help them make the change if they choose.
If they are happy with what they use presently, have no interest in OSs generally, then they have no reason to change, and I have no reason to get involved.

In essence I fail to see the benefit to anyone of threads such as this, with fans of both trying to 'score points' off the other.
'Linux' is not another Windows; Windows is not another Linux.

'Vive la différence'


IMO, people should choose what suits them, accept its consequences, and be happy that they have made the right choice For Them!

The only thing that bothers me a bit, is that (a lot of/the majority of) people are not aware they have a choice, and thus cannot make informed decisions.

So, IMO, the only thing needed is the promotion of awareness of choice .... not the promotion of any particular choice.

Everybody posting in this thread is aware there are choices, hence I see no benefit in the majority of the content of the thread.
(I apologise if that seems harsh, it is only my personal perspective)

Groinshot

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I can only presume that you mean a forum of a Linux distro ...... and all I can say is that if that is the attitude you regularly meet then it is past time you changed the distro you are using.

In my experience a RTFM response, is a rarity.

Of course if the problem is not explained ... such as "I'm having trouble with X and Y" .... it is no wonder it gets strange responses!
People have more to do with their time than trying to figure out what some lazy poster, asking for help, omitted.

There is always the alternative to pay someone to do the work for you .....

Yeah, that was the response I got when learning Ubuntu, from the Ubuntu forums.
I was just giving an example, not saying that was how I phrased a question.
Over the worst of it at this stage, and have gotten the hang of it, but only after breaking it multiple times.

BostonB

Kinda agree with Johnboy1951. Though the thread wasn't about Linux being successful it was looking for reasons why people who don't use it, don't use it, (as a desktop os is implied IMO). As such there really wasn't any reason for some who uses linux to reply.

I guess the answer to that is why should you care what other people use. I certainly don't. I'll use what ever OS is convenient and/or most useful at the time. I don't really care what other people are using. I've always enjoyed poking around on any computer, since I first used a 386, Dragon 32, Atari, OS6, OS/2 back in the day. Never really understood the intense fanaticism to one OS or platform.