“I recently read this article about how the Linux device driver project needs more work to do. I pondered this for awhile, and came to a realization. While Linux still does indeed lack drivers for some hardware, I believe that the lack of drivers is no longer the largest technological obstacle to Linux adoption. The thing Linux needs to focus mostly on now is completeness, not quantity, of hardware support.” Read on.
‘Linux Doesn’t Lack Drivers, It Lacks Complete Drivers’
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Vista doesn’t work with anywhere near the amount of hardware that Linux works with.
The thing Vista needs to focus mostly on now is completeness and quantity of hardware support. Oh, and getting rid of the numerous “users-don’t-want-it” features such as DRM and WGA and activation wouldn’t hurt either.
No need to get defensive. I think you want vista to fail more than you want Linux to succeed. Nobody loves a spoilsport.
Not a bit of it. If a site such as “OSNews” were to simply hold different Operating Systems to the same standards of criticism, then I would be happy.
I cannot see any point in criticizing Linux for an area where it actually leads the pack. There is a far wider variety of supported hardware and better quality drivers for Linux that there is for either OSX or Vista.
Why should OSNews continue to post topics which hint towards the exact opposite of reality? That is, assuming no hidden agenda is at work … which more and more one suspects to be an invalid assumption.
Edited 2007-10-28 04:58
The article questioned the quality of linux drivers, not the quantity, and that’s a valid point. I think the author did a decent job of clarifying the point with his examples.
Aside from the author’s point about drivers not being able to support the full functionality of hardware, there is also the issue of drivers that become stale in the kernel because they have no maintainers and suffer regressions when other subsystems change in the kernel, in part due to the “we can change the internal API’s at will” mentality of the devs. This is a point that Andrew Morton himself brought up, that many of the devs work on newer and sexier projects rather than the grunt work of maintaining the older stuff and the number of bugs and regressions is increasing because of that.
I commend the kernel devs and respect the work they have done with providing drivers, particularly when they require reverse-engineering, and I’m certainly grateful for the ability I have to run linux on most systems I install it on. That level of development support is something that is so far above my own ability to contribute towards that I won’t dare judge. I also understand the challenges they have with hardware vendors not releasing specs, or not even having access to the hardware that users are requesting support for. Their challenges are going to become even more apparent as development efforts move towards things like power efficiency, which is difficult to implement without vendor support. So don’t take this as condemnation of the effort and work the devs have done to this point, that’s not my intent.
But pretending the problem doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. Yes, linux may support more hardware than Windows does, but Windows (and OSX) generally has better support for hardware than linux does. There is a difference. It’s not criticism of linux or praise of Microsoft/Apple, just a reality that we need to figure out how to best address.
only place i have seen issues with lack of full feature support are in the area of video card drivers, and then its about stuff like built in tv out chips and similar.
thing is, thats mostly a Xorg issue, not a kernel issue, as its Xorg that does the desktop work.
and given that in windows and osx, the programmers of the drivers have full access to the docs of the hardware (if it exists. i have seen some horror stories that even the companies themselves use reverse engineering like techniques at times because the doc and the chip dont match at all when done) and therefor dont have do bothersome trial and error.
that linux, despite this, support as much hardware as it does, is impressive imo. and buts vista in a even worse light then before.
It’s not the quantity this article talks about. It’s the fact the drivers that do exist in Linux are usually inferior. Take the scanner used as an example. In Vista the scanner scans quickly and every button on the scanner works. In Linux it scans slowly and none of the buttons work.
This is a kernel issue. This isn’t just about video cards; it’s about all hardware supported by Linux. It’s about all the laptops that boot Linux, but can’t use the built in mic. It’s all the audio cards that have digital outputs but can only output on the crappy headphone outs (that’s the really big reason Linux isn’t used in major audio production). It’s all the webcams that have buttons on them to take a snapshot but do nothing when you push them. I could go on but it would be easier if you just read the actual article because it actualy makes Vista look good. At least shit works in Vista.
No, it doesn’t.
http://www.techspot.com/news/23854-vistaincompatible-hardware-causi…
http://www.vistaforums.com/forum/Topic2828-41-1.aspx
http://vistaincompatible.com/forums/YaBB.pl?board=hardware
If you know of such hardware, please send a request in to these people:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6669895837.html
Here is their wiki
http://linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/DriversNeeded
They are apparently ready, willing and able, and looking for work to do.
ok, so let me take the article, example by example…
1. the 13 buttons work. yes there is a lack of gui apps for setting it up, but xorg can handle the number of buttons and stuff nicely. notice i said xorg. the kernel does not much care about the mouse. its a xorg thing. and xorg can deal with its features, it does not do so automagically (imo thats a good thing, but i can see why its not so for a tweak averse windows user. if that kind of person would buy such a beast in the first place, that is).
2. the bios flash and overclocking is perhaps kernel, but i think i would prefer a in-bios solution (and my current motherboard has such iirc). only issue with that is that they often require a fat partition to read of or similar (and how often do common users flash their bios? i would find it more likely to be done by a geek squad employee or similar). and overclocking? what common user use those again? to me those are like chipping a car. its only the enthusiasts that do that, and most often for gaming reasons. ergo, they would go near linux in the first place.
3. who the hell leaves the g-force meter controlled in the driver?! the best bet would be that its in the hardware, that way it could respond independent of the state the os is in! this smells so bad of winmodem its not even funny. as in, the minimum amount of hardware needed (hardware is expensive), maximum amount of stuff in the code (code is cheap, just stuff it in a driver and burn it to a cd). fingerprint reader? no clue, but again i smell a webcam sensor and software drivers. would love to see the usb dumps on that laptop. custom buttons. write a xmodmap file most likely. ok, i have two here on my keyboard that i cant pick up in linux, but i dont miss them. their feature was to launch “word” and “excel”. there are also some multimedia and web browsing keys. those i have full use of in kde
and yet again this is not a kernel issue but a xorg issue. and to me it works fine. yes, my distro lacked the correct setup for it. but then i choose one that was that low on preconfigs for a reason. ubuntu would probably differ (altho i see the article talk about running ubuntu on said laptop). those io issues with SD cards should be reported up the kernel chain of command, probably with some usb and pci dumps to id the chip in use.
4.on-board sound? yet another winmodem moment in my experience. i have a motherboard with onboard ati/realtek chip. to get mixing i had to set up dmix under alsa. the driver was snd-hda-intel, and the chip so new alsa could not make head or tail of it. works for my use, but then i never cared so much for sound as long as i had analog stereo
and i wonder how many non-enthusiasts that do. and i suspect most of them are on apple anyways…
5. scanners are interesting beasts. up there with printers in my book of hardware lock-in. sure, there exist standards for grabbing grahpics of a scanner, but they only go as far as the driver interface at best. beyond that its every man for himself. that mail button sounds like a cute effect, but i wonder how many times i would use it. most likely it only worked with outlook under windows anyways. the slowness of scanning will probably be fixed in later revisions. could be that the reason is it only scans on max resolution in the current incarnation or something. i say, primary features first, “nice” to have ones (used ones in a blue moon) later. hell, i kinda like how the hp scanner/printer i have available right now takes care of it. built in webserver for basic scanning
and imo the interface on that web page is much better for simple use then the overgrown sane interface that the windows driver provides. most features will not be used anyways, one will just hit template grayscale or color and be done with it. if one tries at all. outside of its use as a copying machine, its i that has to operate it anyways, no matter the os (the others can deal with it as a copier as they have experience in the work environment with classical xerox machines and similar). my kids, if i even have any, will probably be more savy with the scanner, then i ever will be. and i suspect they will also speak linux fluently…
The times, they are a changing …
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=897&num=1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=897&num=4
Edited 2007-11-01 09:55
I think it’s more applicable to state the following:
Linux supports a wide variety of hardware, and supports it well.
The more ‘mainstream’ hardware is what it has a hard time dealing with – such as full support for WiFi adapters, a multitude of web cameras, soft-printers/scanners/multi-function hardware.
Seriously – who uses EISA or VLB anymore? Linux driver development needs to get more mainstream if it’s going to survive with new hardware that doesn’t exist yet.
For crying out loud, my USB Missile Launcher NEEDS TO WORK FROM MY CUBICLE!
LMFAO! Thanks, I was drinking a soda when I read that – and now you owe me a new keyboard. 😉
The “pack”? How do you define “the pack”? OSX and Vista? Is there some reason we should be content to aim for mediocrity? What’s your agenda?
I’m wondering if you actually bothered to read the article. I didn’t find it to be excessively negative at all, and I think the writer has good examples and valid points. What are we supposed to do, pretend this issue doesn’t exist? Exploring the issue and honest criticism will only serve to make the Linux platform stronger. Sometimes it’s hard to accept, but this isn’t an arena for shrinking violets.
Lol seriously, show some numbers otherwise shutup. What you are saying is ridiculous. Windows has more market share (meaning more 3rd party developers want to develop for it) and in addition it doesnt require developers to open source drivers (i.e. there is a relatively stable ABI they can develop with against) again meaning they will want to produce drivers for Windows and less so for Linux. What I have said is just common sense.
No.
With Vista, Microsoft doesn’t write the drivers. OEM’s write the drivers.
Drivers for Windows XP and earlier, for the most part, don’t work for Vista.
For any piece of hardware that has gone out of production before Vista release, there is no point in the OEM writing a driver for Vista for it. It is out of production … the OEM won’t make any more money out of it.
The driver is OEM proprietary. Microsoft couldn’t write a Vista driver for it even if they wanted to.
Ergo, for most of the hardware in use, that had gone out of production prior to the release of Vista, there will likely never be a working driver for Vista for it.
This situation doesn’t pertain to Linux. For the most part, Linux drivers aren’t written by the OEM (exception being video cards, but even that is changing … I am running an open source Radeon driver right now, for example).
In fact, I am running Kubuntu 64-bit. When I look at the “restricted drivers” system setting, it reports to me “Your system does not require any restricted drivers”.
Virtually all drivers in Windows Vista are restricted drivers.
What is even more interesting is going to be the transition to 64-bit OS. Since Microsoft doesn’t write the drivers, and most CDs that come with hardware do not include a Windows 64-bit driver, then the transition to 64-bits Windows is going to be even messier than the XP to Vista transition, when it comes to lack of drivers. It will be similar to the 16-bit Windows 3.1 to 32-bit Windows 95 transition all over again.
Once again, this situation doesn’t pertain to Linux, which has the source code for most of it’s drivers. For 64-bit Linux, it is mostly just a matter of a re-compile of the 32-bit driver. My own system is already a testament to that.
It is just common sense, really. It is always better to have the source code.
Lol. You seriously did not think that through, did you?
Edited 2007-10-28 09:55
For any piece of hardware that has gone out of production before Vista release, there is no point in the OEM writing a driver for Vista for it. It is out of production … the OEM won’t make any more money out of it.
Boy am I glad you’re not at the helm of any of these hardware companies, then! Fact is, MS in conjunction with the hardware companies put a lot of work into already including drivers for old devices, and where they didn’t get around to it, most of the hardware companies themselves did (unless you bought some no-name cheapo piece of junk in which case what did you expect for product support). The reason that you are (thankfully) wrong is that the hardware companies know that they will have millions of complaining angry customers if their products don’t work on the latest version of Windows. Whereas they don’t give much of a damn about Linux because it’s a minority market and they figure someone in the OSS community will develop the drivers themselves anyway.
It seems clear to me that you yourself haven’t used Winows in ages, otherwise you’d have a clue about what the driver situation on Windows is actually like. Maybe you should speak from experience instead of from “common knowledge”.
It’s not that I’m a Windows fanboy, far from it, but your “Linux is better, period” stance seems just a tad out of touch with reality.
Edited 2007-10-28 10:56
What kind of fantasy-world do you live in?
Most hardware works its full life with just the one version of its Windows OS. Most computers ever have only the original version of Windows installed. Most drivers are never updated on these systems.
Most Windows installs are done by the OEM before the sale, and that is it. Almost no-one actually buys a new version of Windows. Most new versions of Windows won’t run on most of the hardware that exists at the time of its release anyway.
Most Windows installs are therefore done onto hardware that is still in production.
Most of the installs of a newer version of Windows on older hardware are pirated or “borrowed” copies. No-one complains about a lack of drivers for a dodgy copy of Windows.
I’d put it at less than 10% of drivers that get updated to work properly with the next version of Windows that comes out after the hardware goes out of production. Maybe 10% is being generous.
The last time I logged in to Windows was this morning. I am forced to used Windows every working day, but I do get some respite on weekends at home if I don’t have to bring anything home to work on.
The last time I installed Windows was XP SP2 some six weeks ago. I have made up desktop and server systems from parts (including blank hard disks) and installed the OS and applications for approximately 80 different systems. I get to build up a new system for one acquaintance or family member or another every couple of months. On none of them has the hardware been the same.
I hate to say it, but most people want only Windows, because they are afraid of anything different. I install Linux far less frequently than Windows. I repair Windows installations, and install new stuff for Windows far more often, because not only is Windows pervasive, but it breaks more often and Windows systems frequently have to be “cleaned”.
The driver situation is as clear as a bell to me.
How many systems have you put together?
I have gotten very, very good at finding drivers on the web for older hardware for Windows. Most people can’t find “the CD that came with the printer” or whatever. Forget about it for motherboard hardware and the associated drivers CD. The number of times I have to install a Windows 2000 or NT driver on an XP system and hope for the best is depressing …
Any install of a recent version of a Linux distribution on “random” hardware is dead easy in comparison.
Edited 2007-10-28 11:58
“Most new versions of Windows won’t run on most of the hardware that exists at the time of its release anyway.”
WTF? Vista will run on acceptably on a P4 1.5 with a Gig of Ram, not great, not fast, but it will run. It’ll look like crap because unless the video card is up to snuff, it’ll run Vista Basic graphics, but it will run.
Vista will run on every PC in my house, including the moldy old Duron 1.2 sitting in the corner. Aero will run on my Athlon XP 2800+ and 2000, and Aero runs just fine. Most of the PCs at my office will run it just fine too (we tested them) all they needed was some RAM. The average machine is a 2.6 with 512M of RAM.
Windows XP ran acceptably on anything above 400Mhz, which was about entry level when it came out. Come on, your assertion is false, and you should know better.
I have gotten very, very good at finding drivers on the web for older hardware for Windows.
Well this is the crux of it. In my experience (and perhaps I’ve just been much luckier than you) Windows drivers are almost always findable over the web. It may not be the best situation (especially given that Windows always pretends to be able to find drivers for you but can never actually deliver), but at least there is a way. With Linux if the driver’s not there already, you probably can’t find it, and even if you can find it, it’s often a bitch to install.
My apologies for assuming you don’t use Windows anymore.
Well, not really. Just for your information: using Soundblaster Live! Platinum (the original version) and NO driver support. Although Creative promised a lot when they launched the device X years ago. No drivers either by MS or Creative (at least it was so when I tried to install Vista half a year ago). The only drivers available are “community” drivers and I don’t want to install them. My Logitech Quickcam had no usable driver for some time after Vista release (if I am informed correctly, they did release it after some time and it should be working now). I also used Netgear Wireless PCI card. No support at the time. Have no idea whether they fixed this. Anyway, these are or no-name and exotic devices. They just decided not to support some of them and I decided I will not support them either.
Fact is, MS in conjunction with the hardware companies put a lot of work into already including drivers for old devices, and where they didn’t get around to it, most of the hardware companies themselves did (unless you bought some no-name cheapo piece of junk in which case what did you expect for product support).
Microsoft may do that with some, but not all. For example, my nVidia Lightspeed 128 (Riva128 chipset) has current Linux 2.6 kernel support, but has not had good support for Windows since Windows ’95/98 when the manufacturer provided drivers; even Microsoft’s WinME implementation didn’t provide what I had under Win95. Forget about trying to put it in Win2k or WinXP, let along Vista.
Fact is, the F/OSS communities drivers are there and for the most part stay around and remain updated. Where as in the Microsoft world – as with any proprietary OS – the drivers fade away as soon as the manufacturer thinks they can get away with it – usually 2 to 3 years after release, or one or two supported OS releases away. (E.g. Released for Win2k, Supported in WinXP, no longer supported in Vista.) That is a pretty typical thing in the Windows world – hardware and software.
The reason that you are (thankfully) wrong is that the hardware companies know that they will have millions of complaining angry customers if their products don’t work on the latest version of Windows.
As I said above, the hardware companies only care about it long enough to get the people onto the next version. Instead of indefinately supporting the drivers until the hardware is no longer in use – they drop support after they are a product or two generation a long, or a generation or two of Microsoft’s OS has gone by.
So all that hardware that was initially released for Windows 2000, which saw driver support in WinXP, but has since become obsolete in the manufacturer’s mind won’t see support in Vista. Instead, the manufacturer will say "please upgrade to our new product".
In the Linux world, the driver typically get maintained until there are so few people using them any where that they drop them, and even then it goes through a deprecation cycle first: unsupported -> testing -> supported -> supported but deprecated -> no one complains about lack of functionality b/c of being deprecated -> removed, but easily brought back through a patch
Once support in Windows is dropped – it is dropped. You’re left running an old version of Windows (that may no longer be supported itself) to keep using the hardware. This is why a lot of companies are still using NT4, and even Windows 2000.
Thankfully, the parent is right and Linux doesn’t do it the Windows way for most drivers.
Stop spreading FUD. Drivers written for xp for the most part work fine in vista, the only ones that I know of which don’t are video card drivers, due to the completely different way vista handles graphics.
Actually, it is anything to do with the audio+video subsystems of PCs. The reason for this comes from the DRM-imperative, where Vista must deliberately degrade the audio and video if there is a HD media source present but Vista doesn’t trust you … the owner of the hardware.
All video and audio systems and drivers that would not allow such a deliberate degradation are not compatible with Vista.
A lot of NAS devices won’t work with Vista. Printers too are quite commonly incompatible.
There are a lot of other bits & pieces:
http://www.digital-community.co.uk/forum/computer-information-probl…
http://www.chicagotech.net/vista/vistacompatible.htm
http://vistaincompatible.com/forums/YaBB.pl?board=hardware
http://www.techspot.com/news/23854-vistaincompatible-hardware-causi…
http://www.wifimvp.com/vistaincompatible.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COQFg_XN9lM
http://www.techtalkz.com/windows-vista-all/20410-help-vista-seems-i…
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11474-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=4022…
http://mediavidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/case-against-vista.html
http://www.chicagotech.net/vista/vista.htm
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/814356.htm…
http://www.dataapex.com/support/faq.php?showAnswer=42
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=97&threadID=218…
http://www.winvista.in/vista-compatibility.html
http://www.winvista.in/windows-vista-drivers.html
Don’t take my word for it, read all about it for yourself.
Edited 2007-10-29 13:51
Vista… and EVERY OTHER DEVICE WHICH PLAYS HD CONTENT.
What i was talking about is the completely redone multimedia stack, not just the hd stuff (which also plays a part in it)
The NAS problem is two parts
1) Older DHCP servers which dont use the BROADCAST flag will often not work right in vista, although that is alot better after a recent patch
2) IPv6 is default in vista, which was a dumb idea because support for v4 is still buggy on alot of devices.
Neither has to do with xp drivers being incompatible with vista, they have to do with some descisions that were made with the redone network stack.
Anyways, the first link was a small “verified compatibility list”, the second was about those network issues i mentioned, the third is a small opinion piece. None are exactly damning. Every device I own was supported OOTB by vista at launch, IIRC they are nearing close to a million WHQL drivers which are verified compatible and download automatically through windows update (FAR more then xp ever had), and for those poor folks with cheap printers/scanners/webcams (we are talking vital devices here), ms has already released (and will continue to release) hardware compatbility patches to get as much of the xp drivers working as possible.
The situation is FAR from what you were implying. I know you are a linux guy, so your only knowledge of vista comes through reading articles, but what you are doing is spreading FUD.
Pfft. There is a longish list of perfectly functional, still-current devices that do not work with Vista. I provided a sample. The devices are not functional in Vista BECAUSE Microsoft has decided that your Vista system MUST have DRM.
What if you didn’t actually want to watch any HD content … and your relatively recent PC could run Vista fairly well if the drivers for the audio-video parts could work with Vista … Microsoft has decided “no Vista for YOU!!”.
Can you even buy a “no-DRM version” of Vista, because your hardware doesn’t even have a HD drive anyway? No, you can’t. You are being screwed.
The only thing that surprises me is that there seems to be so many people insisting “no, I’m not being screwed ” … even as they are bending over to pick up the bar of soap.
Drivers written for xp for the most part work fine in vista, the only ones that I know of which don’t are video card drivers, due to the completely different way vista handles graphics.
Graphics, Sound, and Network had big changes in their systems. Two moved to Userland (Graphics, Sound), and the other had an entire API change.
Also, Serial ports had a big change for the better.
Drivers typically don’t carry from one Windows release to another either. So the parent would be right.
The is typically true of Linux too, but at least with Linux you can port it up to what you want to use.
Don’t forget the ext2 drivers for WindowsXP which don’t seem to work under Vista. And don’t expect the drivers to be signed by MS anytime soon either. In fact Windows has drivers for fewer filesystems than any other OS i’ve seen in recent times.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
If a site such as “OSNews” were to simply hold different Operating Systems to the same standards of criticism, then I would be happy.
I never understood the idea that if someone likes Coke they have to put down Pepsi. No one is trashing Linux. Criticism such as this exists because people want to make Linux as good as possible. It’s not always about Microsoft. if you don’t like Vista, don’t use it, but if you want Linux to succeed, then look at it’s warts as well as its fine points and try to make it as accessable to as many people as possible.
Linux is already there. I am simply objecting to those with an agenda to try to make it appear as though it isn’t.
Linux will succeed with or without me. It will succeed no matter what you or I say. It will succeed if barely anyone can see beyond the media advertising and hype and misdirection, and thereby escape from the Windows treadmill. Linux will succeed beyond all efforts to make it fail, or make it seem as though it is failing.
It is one of those “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time” things, you see.
“I cannot see any point in criticizing Linux for an area where it actually leads the pack. There is a far wider variety of supported hardware and better quality drivers for Linux that there is for either OSX or Vista.”
I agree with you as far as Vista goes, but OS X has no need to support the full range of hardware Linux and Windows needs to support, because OS X is not supposed to be used on anything other than Apple hardware. On Apple hardware, the supported devices usually work better than anything else you’ll find, under any operating system.
Edited 2007-10-28 12:33
Not even. I have vista, and I dont think there are any linux drivers of better quality, except those put out by the manufacturer. There are oss drivers of comparable quality, but not better. My graphics card has half the features in linux and is twice as hard to configure (for example)
I find that with Vista, it’s a mixed bag, it all depends on your hardware. Vista’s driver situation will get better quicker than it has in the Linux world, however, taking a year or two before driver support is pretty complete.
I totally dig it. Stuff like this really got my back up too.
What in the world do you want? Anything short of an article saying “Linux is perfection itself” is an attack to some people.
The problem is not quantity. Linux supports way more stuff out of the box, but that’s not the point. The point is that if I find a device somewhere buried in my collection of computer crap, I’m 90% certain I can get it working on Windows XP, and about 80% sure I could get it working on Windows Vista [well, seeing my Vista laptop’s battery and charger died, I won’t get it running on Vista at all
]. I can just go to the manufacturer’s website, and most likely, I can find a nice driver installer there et voilà .
With Linux, it’s a hit and miss thing. If it isn’t recognised by default, I’m kind of in trouble. There’s a big chance the manufacturer’s website won’t list Linux as an option at all on their driver page, and even if they did, driver installation on Linux is STILL a total pain in the ass. You have to have the right module for your kernel type, load it in, set it up to load automatically, etc.
The first problem (the hit-and-miss situation) is not Linux’ fault at all, of course. The Linux devs have done an amazing job at supporting all my modern hardware, but obviously, if device manufacturers don’t help out, it’s an ever continuing battle, with no end in sight.
The second problem (driver installation and kernel compatibility issues) is of course the full responsibility of Linus & Friends, and until they get this utter mess sorted out, the first problem will remain.
Ah the usual OSNews-eats-babies-and-kills-panda-bears accusation. Couldn’t you have posted this at the beginning, so I wouldn’t have had to waste my precious time on writing a reply?
Edited 2007-10-28 12:33 UTC
the most interesting thing is that one can often find that one driver under linux supports multiple hardware from many companies, because the chip itself comes from the same subcontractor.
so often one does not really need to find the driver at the company page. instead one hit the net and see if someone have id’d the chip used in hardware X.
and manually loading a driver? cant say i have done so in ages. my experience is that if the chip can be id’d, the driver will load on boot.
one may at times pass arguments to the driver tho. to get my onboard sound chip volume control working nicely with alsa i had to make snd-hda-intel see the model as generic. that way i read the info of the chip verbatim rather then try to apply some preset setup. sadly that generic option can be a hit or miss experience.
all in all i think the bigger issue is that people is to used to dance the windows way (hardware company for drivers, download.com and friends for programs) but thats not the linux dance, at all.
Edited 2007-10-28 14:48
Mmm, mmm – love that minced-words pie!
oh noes! Eugenia and Thom are out to single handedly destroy Linux’s reputation by posting only articles criticizing it! They never post articles criticizing Windows or OSX or the BSDs!
Vista doesn’t work..
The thing Vista needs..
Vista? Is this article not about Linux drivers?
Ask your doctor if valium is right for you
Linux too, so what?
I have run Vista since it came out. No drivers problems for me. It runs every type of hardware I have right out of the box, and if not, the drivers are there fo it. You cannot say that about your religion. I do not know where you get the information if you do not use the OS?
Like someone else said to you, the article was about Linux not Vista. Can you stay focus, or did you forgot your meds this morning?
Another thing for you Linux fan. I have used Linux enough, Open Suse, Ubuntu, to know it is not ready for me or prime time. So why don’t you listen to rational people like the writer of the article that is trying to make your OS(religion) better, instead you freaks always critized anyone that tries to improve your religion.
“Another thing for you Linux fan. I have used Linux enough, Open Suse, Ubuntu, to know it is not ready for me or prime time. So why don’t you listen to rational people like the writer of the article that is trying to make your OS(religion) better, instead you freaks always critized anyone that tries to improve your religion.”
Religion…thats a really strange term. Its even stranger when you consider that Linux almost completely controlled by self-interested business.
The reality is this is almost a cornerstone article, Linux almost ubiquitous hardware support, but drivers are not always *feature* complete or rely on complicated fixes, and examples of this are *everywhere*, but quantity and quality of the drivers as a whole are excellent. Its not an article that says XXX hardware doesn’t work in Linux its saying XXX hardware needs X feature supported. Thats a massive change of opinion in the last couple of years.
The bottom line is you have you used Linux *today* the latest release candidate is out 2.6.24-rc1, and I will tell you a whole wealth of features will be added to current drivers, and a new crop of features it has the largest diff in the history of Linux, and includes many new drivers most being DVR and wireless ones. Its not perfect; There is lots of room for improvement, but come every 2.5 months you know its a little closer to being perfect.
So what you’re doing is comparing bad with bad. According to your logic, because Windows Vista is ‘crappier’ than Linux, therefore better.
The issue isn’t about the issues you have with Windows Vista and your mouth foaming hatred of Microsoft, it has to supporting hardware, not only supporting the core functionality, but fully supporting it.
Take my HP laptop for example (now since sold, and I’m a happy Mac user (again!)), it has a webcam, it uses a firmware which is uploaded but is still based on the UVC specifications. I can download the driver off http://viveks.wikidot.com/ricoh-r5u870-webcam-in-linux – yes, it all works as it should, but the UVC implementation is incomplete so none of the features such as colour balancing and so forth are available – there are a list of incomplete features off linux-UVC development website.
Lets move onto the audio driver, again, its ‘supported’ but when I put in my ear phones, the speakers continue to play audio even though ear phones have been plugged in. The audio record is a situation of hit and miss whether it actually works – like the webcam, it all works flawlessly in Windows.
Two examples of drivers which support the basic but not fully supporting all the features in the hardware – all the rest of the crap relating to WGA, DRM and so forth have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. The issue is hardware support and how well the drivers support the features in the hardware – that is, features beyond the ‘core’ features of a given piece of hardware.
“Lets move onto the audio driver, again, its ‘supported’ but when I put in my ear phones, the speakers continue to play audio even though ear phones have been plugged in. The audio record is a situation of hit and miss whether it actually works – like the webcam, it all works flawlessly in Windows. ”
you can switch between your normal audio device to your usb-audio device and vice-versa with a customized ~/.asoundrc or if you are using Ubuntu you can use the asoundconf script
Edited 2007-10-28 17:43
Or you can use the OS that does it for you, since you’ve got better things to do, like actually getting some work done on your computer.
“WGA, DRM and so forth have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.” If you are doing a comparison of hardware support then DRM,WGA is very important. Both for its negative spin, which impacts hardware cost, reliability, stability, driver production time, insane hardware compliance, performance issues, privacy concerns…the list goes on.. The massive major impact of this is *still* to be realized.
The positive spin will be Vista users *possibly* having exclusive premium(sic) content.
Vista has generally poor hardware support now, it has been RTM for going on a year, all you can say if hardware support continues to improve…but it will always suffer from crippling effects from DRM.
Not entirely.
WGA, DRM and activation are all “features” of Windows that can make it not work, or work only in a degraded or reduced functionality mode, with your hardware.
DRM in particular is a messy intertwining of hardware drivers and the core of the OS that can result in degraded performance of your hardware. Deliberately.
It must be said, Windows has a lot of issues that derive from the basic fact that the source code is kept secret. All of these issues affect the end user, who has actually paid for the hardware, but the whole paradigm of keeping the source code secret and supplying binary-only copies of software is done purely and utterly in the interests of the hardware/software producer. Yet the consumer has to wear the expensive consequences.
It isn’t so much Microsoft that I dislike, but rather the whole business model of closed source software, which ultimately and repeatedly ends up screwing the very people who are paying for the equipment.
Forced obsolescence (through software upgrade) of working functional hardware, for example, wouldn’t be possible without closed-source drivers. Likewise, degradation of the video quality over an “untrusted” (by the RIAA) video path wouldn’t be possible unless the OS was both complicit in the DRM scheme and also strictly closed-source.
All of these various mechanisms of screwing the end users and consumers ultimately rely on keeping secrets from the people who have actually paid for the equipment.
How is that ethical?
Edited 2007-10-29 00:17
Sorry lemur2, but DRM, WGA, etc. have nothing to do with this topic. From the beginning of this thread you have continuously tried to change the subject so you can rant, whine, and cry about Microsoft, Windows, Vista, etc..This is just tiresome and annoying.
You do realize NOBODY forces you to use any Microsoft products? You are free to use whatever you want, so just do it and quit your whining. Constructive criticism is essential to improving anything, your anti-Microsoft whining is not helpful, nor does it present Linux users in a good light. I know quite well a lot of people think very negatively on Linux simply because of the manner in which the users act.
I disagree. DRM for one is built in to the hardware drivers in Windows.
At a deeper level, I feel they are indirectly related, as they derive from the same root cause … the whole proprietary software binary-executable-only paradigm. There is without doubt an attempt being made to control and limit your use of your own computer via this whole paradigm. You just have to read a EULA to see it.
Why is it not “constructive criticism” to point out the dire situation with Windows hardware drivers?
There is a saying which fits, here. “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink”. All that I am trying to do is highlight how oppressive the Windows scene is, and how it strips you of rights. Not my rights, YOUR RIGHTS.
Of course I realise that. I know it because I don’t actually use Microsoft products. You do realise that I am trying to help other people see that they too DON’T HAVE TO USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS if they don’t want to, don’t you? Hmmm?
The fact that you claim people will think negatively of me and Linux just because you claim that I am “whining” is a debating technique I would describe as “misdirection”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdirection
So, to demonstrate that I am actually being helpful here, despite the utterly unsupported claim above that “your anti-Microsoft whining is not helpful”, I hereby present some hints on how some ordinary user who feels they MUST continue with Windows (and who has been persuaded by the media misdirection that Linux would be too hard for them) can have some hope of getting out from under the oppression:
http://nixedblog.thenixedreport.com/?p=111
There. That will hopefully get you some small baby steps towards software freedom.
I truly hope this helps you.
Edited 2007-10-29 04:28
Actually, It looks to me as if you are the one attempting misdirection here. Sure, what you are saying about the binary only software paradigm is spot on, but you are digressing from the actual point of this article, valid criticism of the Linux, not Windows, driver support situation.
Howling at the moon about the evils of closed source driver situation is never going to retract from the arguments made in this article. Your attempt at hijacking the the discussion in favor of vilifying another, not in the least related operating system, is not actually helping anybody. Least of all Linux.
The “truth” according to you.
The “criticism” of the topic article is not valid. Linux leads the pack in the area of hardware drivers.
The actual truth is :
Developers of drivers for Linux are running out of projects.
“the lack of drivers is no longer the largest technological obstacle to Linux adoption” (actually, it is not an obstacle at all … but whatever).
Linux runs on more architectures and works with more hardware than any other OS, ever. Period.
The 64-bit transition is upon us (just next year), and Linux is in a far better position than proprietary Windows.
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201…
The actual truth about this article and others like it is therefore: an attempt being made to put a negative-sounding spin on what is actually a positive.
This is just one of a litany of sound-bites being put out about Linux recently. The picture of Linux as the mainstream media is trying to paint it seems is like a miasma surrounding Linux, when the actuality is that Linux is forging ahead in every arena, and the walls are slowly coming down.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out what you believe is the underlying reason for this.
Edited 2007-10-29 13:30
All fine and dandy, and finally something of an actually on topic post. In fact, I agree with allot of what you have said. What still remains as an open point, one that you have neglected to answer, is what the hell all that you have just said, or what the article has had to say, has anything to do with Vista?
Could you not have just posted what you just did without resorting to Vista Bashing?
The “DRM Paradigm” as you describe it, is the only way to play certain kinds of formats legally. The EXACT SAME kind of restrictions exists for hardware HD DVD players, HD TVs, and HD Speakers. This is a specific, particularily abusive form of DRM that is put out by the movie industry (not windows), and anybody who wishes to support it (including microsoft), needs to conform to its guidelines.
There is also DRM in the mac (ever heard of their AAC protection?), and even linux (in the form of LinDVD, or other legal, propriatary DVD playback solutions). In all cases, if you dont believe in the DRM, simply do not buy the format. Don’t buy from iTunes, don’t buy DVDs, and in the case of windows vista, don’t buy HD-DVDs. The fact of its existance in no way effects anyone who isnt actually using it.
It is abusive alright.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/vista_drm_analysis/
But my POINT is that it has made existing hardware and drivers incompatible with Vista, and drivers for Vista are scarce (despite the naysaying of some posters on this thread).
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/1908
If you are in a situation where you must upgrade to Vista (and Microsoft is trying its very hardest to make this a fact, see DX10) then you are being forced to buy new hardware as well.
So my point is … you are actually far better off not going to Vista. Just avoid it. Use anything else. Anything at all. It will be way cheaper for you … and you will be pleasantly surprised how functional any machine becomes without Vista, and how liberating the whole changeover actually is.
That is FUD. If you use anything even remotely approaching standard hardware, vista supports it OOTB. Where linux shines over anything else is support in the cheap scanner area, and the cheap printer area. Quite honestly, those are two devices that are low on my list of importance(btw, the Gutmann article has debunked many times now by many people.)
I like Vista about as much as the current GNOME, more then the current KDE (although kde4 may change that), and way more then XP, but nowhere near OSX. My work requires visual studio (and that I do not regret, hands down best platform on any OS to develop on). The move from XP to Vista was actually liberating in pretty much the ways you described
I must have missed it; where in the article does it mention Vista? Isn’t this about Linux drivers?
Well yes. The article does sheepishly admit to the strong position Linux has with repect to drivers, but then it ponders on a vague criticism of Linux drivers, without actually citing solid examples.
Meanwhile, there is no real picture being painted that the state of Linux drivers is actually far better than any other potential desktop rival. It is better than OSX only because OSX makes no attempt to cover a wide range of hardware, and it is better than Vista because … drivers in Vista are a disaster:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2171472,00.asp
… enough of a disaster that even fromer Vista cheerleaders are publicly thinking of abandonning the OS.
This is the whole picture of the state of drivers that we should be painting.
Edited 2007-10-30 01:36
When I can get a driver for my mp4 video camera, my scanner, and my USB audio interface, let me know. Right now they only work on XP, 2000, Vista, and OSX. They don’t, however, work on Linux.
Like Thom said, if it works out of the box, then it works great. If not, you’re nearly screwed with Linux.
If it doesn’t work out of the box with the others, you simply go to the website and download the driver.
Is this Linux’s fault? No, of course not. It’s the manufacturers.
But let’s not paint a rosier picture than there really is.
Interesting article, good point. Gets me thinking:
From an Average User’s perspective, another drawback when using Linux is that the manufacturer’s drivers that are on the disk that came with your fancy widget are likely to only work with Windows.
A binary blob is not an attractive solution anyways of course… running the installer binary will likely spew crash-prone code into your kernel and vomit corporate logos all over your desktop (the marketing dept always seems to have lots of influence over whoever writes those drivers and hardware utilities.)
And, manufacturers see the source code and/or specs requirements of the Linux world an unpleasant hoop to jump through. They have to jump through even worse hoops for Windows of course, but Microsoft has marketshare to bargain with, Linux doesn’t. So as clever as the ‘let the geeks fix the code’ idea is, it’s not going to happen soon because the suits don’t see the value in writing Free code, they only see the risks.
So:
– Manufacturer’s suits won’t let them release source
– Microsoft is only one with enough marketshare to be compelling
– Manufacturer’s binaries are crash-prone, treat your desktop like the wall of a public washroom stall
– Binaries are usually impossible anyways thanks to kernel linking requiring GPL compliance
Furthermore, let’s face it, it will be incredibly hard for Linux to keep up if we have to reverse-engineer every piece of hardware we want working on it. NDA’s, patent fears, no access to specs, and once again lack of marketshare. Also, manufacturers won’t be having a sudden change of heart like we’re secretly hoping. That ATI/AMD will create a domino effect across the entire PC hardware industry is unlikely.
Not a hopeful outlook perhaps, but I’m only highlighting the problems. I do think something will be figured out; open source devs are a tenacious bunch.
As for an immediate solution, all I can think of is something like ndiswrapper, only on a larger scale; something like Wine or ReactOS code running alongside or interfacing with the Linux kernel somehow, and automatically rebooting the environment when the crappy binary that came with your scanner decides to lock everything up. In short, a hack that emulates the Windows driver interface. This will allow Linux to gain more marketshare, and then it can compel manufacturers to release open source drivers!
Or we can keep butting heads with the manufacturers and hoping they decide to play nice with the 1-2% of their customers that use Linux. Which is perhaps less of a compromise to F/OSS ideals, but I won’t be holding my breath for a conclusion.
Edited 2007-10-28 05:15
My edit window expired so I’ll reply to myself:
The author of TFA also notes that some of the problems he notes could be solved in userspace; so another thought: how could the manufacturers be encouraged to provide open-source userspace apps for working with their hardware…?
This could be dangerous though, because in userspace there’s no GPL linking caveat, so binary blobs could be foisted on unsuspecting Average Users, ask for the root/sudo password, and wreak what, in the Linux world, would be called havoc.
This havoc is the same as it is in the Windows world. The drivers would then become part of the package provided by the hardware vendor. If you don’t like the drivers that the hardware vendor supplies because it messes with your system in ugly ways, voice your opinion, and vote with your wallet. Let them know it’s unacceptable. Mac users are notorious for complaining about their dislikes with software until the company fixes it. (It works.) I know some people don’t trust closed source software, but if you don’t like it, you can always code your own driver.
DDDDD
Edited 2007-10-28 06:42
rebooting the environment when the crappy binary that came with your scanner decides to lock everything up
When was the last time you used Windows? Under XP I haven’t had a single freeze or crash related to third-party drivers, in all of my 6 years of using it (on at least 15 different computers).
Well, an example of this would be Atheros wireless driver that sometimes renders XP almost unusable for me, taking 99% of CPU by “Deferred procedure calls” as Process Explorer reports it. And no, reinstallation or version change don’t help. They still haven’t fixed this crap.
Meanwhile, on Ubuntu Gutsy my wireless works perfectly (although I had to replace Network Manager with WiCD).
My dad’s laptop had printer drivers from both HP and Epson installed. After installing those, the USB ports became incredibly unreliable. Uninstalling the Epson drivers didn’t seem to help, only a full reinstall fixed it.
I still have no Linux driver for: my video camera, my AGFA scanner, and my Firewire HDD. They all work in Windows XP.
Are they still in production? Do they work with Vista?
If they are not still in production, but have been superseded by a later model, and they don’t happen work in Vista, then you will be stuck with XP for that hardware.
I have had many more than just three pieces of equipment in the past which I have abandoned because a later version of Windows did not work with them.
Of late, since I have moved to Linux, and I have checked that the equipment I now buy has an open-source Linux driver before I will buy it, there has been zero cases of my having to abandon functional hardware due to an OS upgrade.
I have escaped the upgrade treadmill, Joe User. I am sorry to see that you have not.
Edited 2007-10-28 10:32
I have had many more than just three pieces of equipment in the past which I have abandoned because a later version of Windows did not work with them.
Just out of curiosity, what were the devices and how many years did you have them before the drivers dried up? I’ve had a couple of cases like that, but usually it was outdated, legacy hardware (read: ISA slots) and/or it was el-cheapo hardware from random Chinese manufacturers. With name-brand stuff (read: HP, Canon…) I’ve never had any lack of driver support. Or maybe you just use other peripherals than the kinds I am thinking of?
There were three different 3D-capable video cards (for two of those the manufacturer is still in business), a scanner, several mice (one of which, can you believe, an expensive piece of CAD software depended upon), two PCMCIA hardware cards, a NAS device, and two printers … those are just the ones I can recall.
Don’t even talk to me about dongles.
In each case, the device was only just out of production (and sometimes you could still buy it in stores) when the next version of Windows came out and obsoleted it.
Edited 2007-10-28 11:49
“Just out of curiosity, what were the devices and how many years did you have them before the drivers dried up? I’ve had a couple of cases like that, but usually it was outdated, legacy hardware (read: ISA slots) and/or it was el-cheapo hardware from random Chinese manufacturers. With name-brand stuff (read: HP, Canon…) I’ve never had any lack of driver support. Or maybe you just use other peripherals than the kinds I am thinking of?”
Sorry this seems to be a theme. Manufactures especially the better value ones, predominately use *common* hardware in their devices. The difference between an Open-source OS and that of a closed source on is these drivers will *continue* to work.
Companies often *obsolete* hardware like ati have done withe there r100-200 range of chipsets in Linux.
…but interestingly I think it raises two points. Should the Microsoft platform not be assessed on its *hardware* support, or even Microsoft the company, especially when its seen how Linux is assessed.
The other side point is that Vista came on the scene with precious little hardware support. The problems where not limited to smaller manufacturing companies but large companies like NVidia; Creative etc.
The proprietary ATI driver for Linux no longer supports r100-r200 chipsets.
The open-source ATI driver for Linux does however still support those chipsets.
Having made that clarification, I agree with the points that you make.
Edited 2007-10-28 12:05
Are they still in production? Do they work with Vista?
They’re not in production anymore. I don’t use Vista nor do I plan to.
I have escaped the upgrade treadmill, Joe User. I am sorry to see that you have not.
These are old pieces of hw. I didn’t even know about Linux at the time…
hmm, wild guess, but are they connected via firewire?
hmm, wild guess, but are they connected via firewire?
Yes.
I think the root of the problem is that people buy their equippment with Windows in mind, and then run into problems the day they try to switch to Linux.
There are plenty of scanners and Firewire equippment that work with Linux, but you need to be a little more careful what brand and model you select.
To get mimimal trouble, I always make sure my hardware works on Linux before I buy it, even if is primarily intended to be used in Windows. You never know whay use they will have later on. Besides, doing so supports the companies that actually have products that work with Linux.
“From an Average User’s perspective, another drawback when using Linux is that the manufacturer’s drivers that are on the disk that came with your fancy widget are likely to only work with Windows.”
This is so true. On top of that, some of them are actually *afraid* to use their fancy widgets with Linux. They fear that Linux could break it… You know why? Because the widget’s manual only talks about Windows and often *strongly* recommends how “you must” install the driver on the install disk before connecting the device.
I’m not just talking out of my rear end. I know a so called “Average User” who *refuses* to use her mp3 player in Linux just because of this. (No, I don’t think she is stupid, she just thinks like a normal user, brainwashed to the Windows way of thinking. I’m a bit frustrated and angry though, as I haven’t been able to change her thinking…)
So we need to get manufacturers to take Linux into account, not only in driver development, but in their manuals too. Or else, it might not even matter whether or not we have drivers in Linux after all…
They have 300 developers looking for things to work on. Here’s my suggestion
Hello Greg,
I have a sprint Evdo modem and I have noticed these devices getting a bit more popular. These devices usually are workable however they lack a universal installer and a device management program.
Thank you,
Kevin
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/mobile/12405/sprint-offers-usb-m…
Already done, man.
I have seen that but what about all the older devices people are still using or the other devices besides 727. All these usb type devices are able to be set up with varying difficulty but it would be nice if it were semi-automatic. I would also like to be able to monitor my connection and network.
I would imagine it’s about as easy as calling them up and seeing if they’ll exchange it for little or no deposit on it as you turn in the old one.
I mean…it’s not like it isn’t worth a try, yanno?
And on the subject of kernel updates to hardware. Yes they are fast, but what good is that to an Ubuntu user who has to wait for 6 months to see the updates? They want to use their hardware when they get it, not wait 6 months for a new release of their chosen OS to update the kernel.
Why can’t kernel and driver updates be more modular somehow? So that if a driver is improved and or has bugs fixed, I can just update it and not have to wait for the next OS release!
So maybe you’re looking for something like this?
http://osnews.com/story.php/18667/Coming-Soon-Automatic-Linux-Drive…
Wow, I didn’t see that article. Lets hope it matures sooner than later
DKMS is already used in some distributions. PCLinuxOS uses it, that I know of. I think Mandriva might already use it too.
No.
Thanks for playing.
The kernel release cycle is nominally 3 months, which is only twice as fast as the distribution cycles. Furthermore, most distributions provide an easy way to install the mid-cycle kernel from an experimental repository.
Modules are pretty much tied to a particular kernel version. This is a fundamental aspect of the development model. It’s a trade-off, and there are clearly arguments for and against it. Future historians will judge whether it was the right decision.
Modules are pretty much tied to a particular kernel version. This is a fundamental aspect of the development model. It’s a trade-off, and there are clearly arguments for and against it. Future historians will judge whether it was the right decision.
I think that it is a good decision to release driver updates along with the kernel in a case like Linux because like you said the releases are only a few months apart. This is a much quicker development cycle for drivers than most manufacturers of the devices offer. Besides if there is a major bug in a driver it can always be fixed by the distributor or in a 2.6.xx.x release.
In my opinion Vista has too much drm it brought us features based of what mpaa/riia wants, why? they pay more than regular users.
But Microsoft only listened to users when they had NT4 done. The graphical interface was allright and adaptable , the OS was fast and didnt crash ofcause they wanted to sell their FakeOS: The Dosgui Win95 so they had to skip the gaming directx support imagining up fairytales about games making the pc unstable.
Then they moved on to Win98 which was the first sign of bloatware all because it had an Active desktop feature which was that Internet explorers core Mshtml was everywhere in the GUI , that was the beginning for the adware/spyware era.
Since then the overactive desktop is everywhere unless people remove it with win98lite, Nlite or XPlite, Which could made a fine Modded OS(still Windows just less evil).
Vista on the other hand skipped win16 but seems to have its own win32 as well, Which makes it very incompatible with Everything .
Only New versions of everything are reccomended but i dont like bloatware thus i will never have it on my system.
Linux on the other hand:
Sure linux was the unix rewrite revolution cutting edge OS which has proven itself suitable in server like environment.
The good things it brought was the opensource culture and soon many linux programs were ported to various unixes.
The bad things it followed from microsoft was the bloatware, Kde,Gnome,gtk3,QT X-windows etc
Sure there can be minimal small Linuxes like Damn Small Linux, but people will only get it if they dont want to run much stuff.
Thats why i run a Custom modded Windows system , because i get the stuff i want running up and running and the OS takes up around 300 MB (IE deleted for good)
Because of my intrest in OSes and Altering things i eventually have my own setup of my windows which takes 10 minutes to install and i dont have to worry about adware/spyware since my changes arnt made public and will probably never be.
Finally: Linux as desktop OS = Sure why not? you want to dedicate your time to the linux community and learn to mount/unmount/compile and sometimes waste time to reinvent the wheel because someone forgot to add a change to the manual which leaves the user with more work, always having some feature not working 100% + a great deal of intrest (which many users lack).
Desktop Windows(Novice user): Use as default MS-installation and feel uneasy, install bloatware security programs and slow down computer.
Desktop Windows(Expert User): Use Nlite strip away lots of crap before it even reaches your harddrive, use bugoff , use hijackthis and processxp clamwin antivirus.
Linux is not Windows and Windows is Not Linux.
both can be desktop OS’es but they both will have their problems as long as nobody fixes them they will always remain their taking chunks of HD space and slowing down the brand new computers.
Microsoft needs to remove drm and software accelleration while Linux needs some small-sized universal library for all the bloat it contains so that it may run enjoyable for everybody regardless ram/cpu ammount.
Both OSes are different they have their faults but nobody said they cant be adressed.
Edited 2007-10-28 05:51
Users don’t know what they want.
Because I hit up against it regularly on silly little details…
Take wireless for example – until recently wireless config was still in the dark ages on linux, but even with the new ‘easy to configure’ versions you hit up against stupid **** like 128 bit WEP ‘shared’ being broken, or the fixes for using it breaking the ability to roam. On a lot of ‘legacy’ pre WPA hardware that’s either the locked in default (some westell modems) or the best encryption available – and it flat out not only doesn’t work ‘out of box’, fixing it is inconsistant between hardware makers (do you put ‘restricted’ before or after the actual key?), usually breaks roaming since you have to hard code that one connect, etc, etc, etc.
Or video… I’ve been doing multiple displays since Windows 3.0 using a targa board, it’s been standard on MacOS since System 6, was introduced as standard under Win98 – and linux STILL handles it like a retarded crack whore just for dual head – don’t even get me STARTED about trying to go three or more displays.
These are the types of ‘little features’ the author was talking about missing – and the type of things that keep me going back to XP when time comes to actually get work done. Between missing little details and the dearth of quality desktop applications, linux on the desktop STILL feels like a trip in the wayback machine to 1991.
Even with the ‘modern’ bullshit goofy graphics, animations and transparancy crap that adds no real functionality that a taskbar set to portrait mode left at 320px would fix… Not that gnome lets you set theirs wider than 128px or KDE lets you go wider than 256…
Edited 2007-10-28 07:16
Shut the fsck up, or be constructive and submit some patches. Oh, you can’t? Then shut the fsck up.
—
That’s right, go ahead and mod me down all you want. I’m a “bad” guy who used a “bad” word. Boo-effing-hoo.
Today Linux supports the most number of devices compared to Windows, other BSDs including NetBSD. But yet still, we see articles like this coming up about Linux. The driver maintainers and linux enthusiasts go mad, because they are right that linux actually supports more devices than any other os.
So whats hindering the impression? Simple. It’s the userspace. There’s proper lack of a standard shell layer above the kernel, that would standardise the way devices get identified, configured, and used. I think nobody can deny this and if they do they won’t convince me for a long time till they show me a distro that does it right.
When I plug in a device, (any device) some of the things I do are, check dmesg, check /proc/devices, (which is a cryptic major/minor pair database) maybe run lspci, maybe check some other place like /sys. It depends really. Sorry but this is what I call a mess.
Anyway, its getting there with projects like dbus, HAL and the like, but it’s been a little bit late.
Well, no. As you wrote yourself, there is HAL, so there is a standard layer for this.
The problem is that distributions, OEMs and hardware vendors so far have put very little work into creating configuration GUIs on top of this and device related projects, e.g. daemons which use the network, also seem not to consider a potentially changing system configuration a priority item.
It’s quite unfortunate that basically the only projects actively making use of the already existing Hardware<->Software communication infrastucture are the desktop projects like Gnome or KDE.
Their use cases, e.g. detecting adding and removing of media, work nicely.
I agree with the author and I would like to add my experience: infact one of the reasons that I use linux was that of “better hardware support” that linux offered to me.
Take for example printers: some times ago a cheap printer in windows had no advanced features like 2 pages in one or photo mode. With linux driver if a cheap printer was supported it gained automatically advanced features: lot of printing modes, etc.
Also software raid is better than some cheap controller with no raid or only raid 0/1.
Cheap audio cards with low latency mode and jack can be used for musician work.
In windows you have to pay for a high end audio card with ASIO drivers.
It is a pity that this trend is reversing due to bad political/strategical decision.
I don’t know where you get your information from but cheap cards will always be cheap and unfit for professional work regardless of the quality of the drivers. It is not the ASIO driver that makes the card good but the hardware used. This is why people pay so much for professional soundcards and even then you still have some interference with the rest of the computer equipment. Oh and if you really think that there is any software that gets even close to the $1000+ commercial offerings are are truly mistaken. But this is another topic in itself.
There are a lot of things that require mots of time money and skill and there is no way that and OSS project that relies on mostly volunteer work will ever be able to compete with that. And no I have no liking for closed source but those are just the facts.
Nonsense.
You make it sound like all projects are led by volunteers, which isn’t true.
You make it sound as if company employees are more motivated or numerous than volunteers.
You make it sound as if you are holding onto some universal truth about the way software is developed when the same thing you are stating was once stated about the server world and nobody complaints about the lack of drivers or their quality in that space.
2007 has been nothing short of revolutionary. AMD/ATI open sources its drivers. Dell pushes all its hardware vendors to provide open source drivers and works to integrate them in the kernel. The writing is on the wall. Things are getting better, not worse and articles such as this one are shallow attempts to mislead.
Yes I know about rme/echo/roland, infact I usually buy RME, but the poor musician that can buy only a sound blaster and wants to make a score to promote himself cannot afford a 1000$ sound card and it does not need that audio quality, but it needs low latency.
With windows it cannot with linux yes. And I remember you that some times ago soundblaster sold a sound blaster and a professional audio card which were based on the same hardware, they differs only for drivers.
Like nvidia does for example with geforce/quadro.
You are completely correct. It was the Soundblaster Live, also known as the Emu 10k in the professional Audio world. Even the SBLive Linux driver was called the ’emu10k1′. In fact, the chip was exactly the same. The cards themselves, an the other hand, where very different. In many respects, the Emu was a much worse card then the SBLive.
As for what you are saying about poor musicians using low end cards to much more effect with Linux, again, you are spot on. I was able to record two demo CD’s, both with 12 tracks each, using a generic Audigy (emu10k2) with near professional sound quality and software enabeling me to do things not possible with the same card, even if I had bought a €1000 audio software suit.
Honest question, what do you use as software/distro? My audio experience in linux has been the exact opposit, hardware that worked fine in xp for multi track recording was horrible (coming up on a full second latency) on linux. Some people suggested patching the hell out of my kernel, which helped, but didn’t really alleviate my problem.
I’m using ableton on vista now for that stuff, works great, and my guitar teacher went garageband on osx, (which I am still incredably jealous over), but I still would like to know how to get that stuff working properly in linux.
I was using PCLinuxOS as my distro, can’t remember the names of the different tools I was using but again, I had to heavily mod the kernel to get the latency issues down to a reasonable level. Mind you, I was working with pure wav files, with very little editing needed. I also had to compile some of the software from source to get it to do what I wanted.
Again, I was able to do this using generic hardware, something I would have been unable to do in windows without forking out allot of money and as I was only recording two demos, it was quite an acceptable trade off. I doubt anyone with the money would be tempted to jump through the hoops I did though. 😉
I use debian with kernel patched and recompiled. I never use standard distro, but recently I have given to my friend which is a “real” musician (it was my teacher) two distro to try:
ubuntu studio
jacklab audio
I have not heard it complaining but I will check him for news.
I am a recording musician (also do studio work for local musicians) and trying to get Linux running for pro audio is a major PITA, and more or less useless to me when compared with the tools available for Windows and OSX.
Even with getting an interface working properly, the software available just plain sucks compared to Windows/OSX.
Again, this isn’t Linux’s fault, but rather lack of support from the manufacturers.
I don’t think it’ll ever happen though, because of the wide variation of distros available. They’re afraid to support so much diversity in an OS.
[quote]I don’t think it’ll ever happen though, because of the wide variation of distros available. They’re afraid to support so much diversity in an OS.[!quote]
No – it simply doesn’t fit into every company’s bottom line.
Call it “white-collar ignorance.”
-fact: lots of drivers
-fact: lots of instable drivers or ‘so-so’-drivers
-fact: lots of companies without any documentation or sourcecode
-fact: lots of abi-changes in Linux
In the end it’s of course a problem of the big companies first, but furthermore it’s a problem of Linux too. Less hype, more quality. This ‘we have support for almost anything’-bullshit is brain-dead behaviour.
So it doesn’t matter if you have any excuse for this behaviour, there is just one thing that counts: quality and reliability. Open source should differ from Windows/Mac OS X because of quality and not hype!
-fact: lots of abi-changes in Linux
It’s amazing how easy some people fall into the “THE LINUX KERNEL DOESN’T HAVE A STABLE ABI!!!1” argument to justify anything with it. The real fact is that Linux is the only operative system in the world that it’s trying to get real full hardware compatibility with the pc/windows world. I can understand that there’re a good share of systems where the drivers are not good enought.
Being the biggest repository of drivers in world and being VERY succesful at working in most of the PCs (and other 20-something architectures) you can throw at it, you’d expect that people would actually BOW to the development project and methods that have made Linux so succesful. You’d expect that people would rely in this system to keep improving and get full hardware compatibily in some years.
Instead, people now proposes that we throw out the system that has made possible to run Linux quite well in most of the PCs of the world – like the unstable driver ABI, not needed in linux due to the central management and opensourceness of drivers, and that has allowed the linux kernel to catchup and surpass most of the operative systems. Fortunately, the people in charge of maintaining linux know how to do their work.
Isn’t quite interesting how certain people kind of hijack the whole thread just to rant about Windows…even though the article in question has nothing to do with Windows.
The discussion is about how drivers could be improved in Linux.
half of the gripes of the author are more distribution specific than general linux kernel / driver problems. But the general idea does hold.
Fact: Linux hardware configuration, despite the numerous improvements in the last couple of years, is still ridiculously complicated in comparison to the other *major* players.
Fact: Many manufacturers of high quality hardware will not release OSS drivers and details about their hardware because this simply means loosing their technological/market edge. Linux developers still refuse to accept the economic reality of the world that they live in.
Fact: Using more than one sound card in linux and successfully switching them at will ( or changing the configurations ) is a gargantuan task. Nothing has really improved over the last 7-8 years.
And the list continues. However, just those 3 facts are enough to make you not want to switch to linux when you are talking about a desktop/laptop computer. Sure none of these are needed for a server but linux is hardly just a server OS and has actually never been such. Maybe it’s time for a Linux steering committee rather than using the single handed ( plus extensions ) method that got linux up to here. Don’t get me wrong linux has a beautiful code base ( for the most part ) but it’s time that issues other than pure code start getting addressed. And I don’t mean by distribution maintainers …
You are either living on the southern hemnisphere and just come out of hibernation or you spent the last couple of months off-world.
Otherwise I have to assume that you are conveniently “forgetting” that several Linux oriented organisations have developed processes for documentation exchange between manufacturers and developers and that these options are being used by companies such as AMD/ATI even in a highly competetive field like grafics cards.
is not that the drivers are incomplete (as they often are). The problem is that we need so many drivers in the first place.
Much of this driver problem should really be fixed by standards. We don’t have different drivers to use two IDE drives from two different hardware venders. Why should we have different drivers for two different brands of video cameras.
Standards for how to talk to different kinds of equippment at low level would make interoperability between different devices so much easier regardless what OS you use.
The article’s subject “Linux Doesn’t Lack Drivers, it Lacks Complete Drivers” is really badly chosen or the article content wasn’t written with the subject in mind.
A more suitable subject would have been “Hardware support is more than just drivers”.
I totally agree on that.
Basically all examples given in the article are either something missing in user space or using the generic driver for a device with extra capabilties, thus being a lack of a (device specific) driver rather than the generic driver not being complete.
Usually the generic driver on Linux is magnitudes better than the respective generic driver on other platforms, but obviously comparing with the other platform’s device specific driver probably makes it look incomplete, while the real problem is the lack of the device specific driver code (either incorporated into the generic driver or as a separate one)
Edited 2007-10-28 15:19
Just my 2 cents, but I’ve never really had any driver problems on either Windows or Linux apart from ATI’s stuff a few years ago when their drivers for anything were notoriously bad. A great way of avoiding a lot of trouble is to stick to mainstream hardware that’s been out for 6-12 months, which is usually what I do.
As for a driver implementing all the features in a piece of hardware, the article has a point. However, reverse engineering must be difficult enough without stretching it into far-flung corners and when you’re getting no help or even resistance from the manufacturers. Many manufacturers are just Far Eastern shell companies who assemble and package ready-made parts so far as I can see. They’ve little knowledge of what they sell and even less interest in helping others to use it. Many of them can barely manage a two-page how-to manual let alone an engineering spec. Overall, if you want cheap – which the market does – this is often what you get.
Computers work best when you stick to what computers are good at, in my experience. Once you starting feeding in all the multimedia stuff, computers often don’t work very well on any platform. A dedicated box – a Topfield, for example – may well be a better bet even if it it represents a lot of cash out compared to downloading a mix of programs from the net and hoping for the best.
The fundamental premise of the blog is shallow and bereft of logic: that no hardware support is better than a basically functional device that may lack some of the bells and whistles.
Not to mention that the author shows he hasn’t explored very far when he mentions that his scanner buttons don’t work. Those and the actions to carry out are configurable under kooka.
Open source works by submitting bug reports and getting involved and it works extremely well. I haven’t had to haunt for a driver on my linux systems for years, whereas I regularly have to drive myself crazy to find drivers for many windows devices.
Just last week, I was asked by a customer to put XP on his Vista laptop. He purchase XP Pro SP2 and it wouldn’t install because the installer did not support the Intel controller on the laptop.
So I go to Toshiba’s site and there is no XP driver for it. I go to Intel’s site, download the generic driver for the controller, feed it to XP via a floppy in the prologue to the installation, XP appears to accept it but in the end, it doesn’t work. The same laptop runs Linux flawlessly, which is what he ended up doing, with XP as a virtual machine.
What a hoax. I guess the author has never visited http://www.phoronix.com.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=category&item=Motherboards
I would say the X38 chipset is pretty new
By this logic BSD doesn’t lack drivers either, it just lacks *incomplete* drivers.
http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html
List as of 10/26/2007
Everything ATi makes but the TV Tuner and Remote Wonder.
Check it out. They now work with Xorg 7.3 except the Fire Series still haven’t been released for Xorg 7.2 or 7.3: Just Xorg 7.1.
The rest are on driver version: 8.42.3
i must say there are lots of drivers out there now but linux lacks an easy way to have the drivers install properly and easily for novice users. oh yeah, i just used ubuntu and fedora for the first time in 5 years and i must say even though im gonna use it since im awsome at unix, its rather difficult for novice users to install software easily as well as its dependencies. after.. 5 years! come on!
Run synaptic. Click on the “search” button, and type in (a) keyword(s) for what you are after. Read the descriptions of the packages in the search results, select the one you want for installation, and click “Apply”.
Easier than anything in Windows.
What are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apt-get#History
Synaptic is a GUI for APT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic
Easy package installation with automatic resolution of dependencies has been in Linux for over 8 years now. You are seriously out-of-date.
Edited 2007-10-29 00:26
Agree. My intel536ep worked ok in dapper, not hard to install(could have been easier though), but in edgy & feisty, it didn’t work at all due to errors. Funny that the source being available didn’t make any difference.
Well even if other OS’s support drivers better. I doubt they support as many across so many platforms.
I don’t see any proprietary os that can run on just about every architecture out there with such a vast array of possible hardware and still keep chugging along as well as Linux has.
Quality in the linux world comes as an iterative process. You just don’t see that in the proprietary world. I imagine that mostly due to the dedicated hardware and software teams being in the same company sharing information freely.