Very Computer

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html

This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you count poor
3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case Linux has even
more problems there).

The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified software
is also a red herring.  Software doesn't have to be certified to run
flawlessly.  I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
certify to save money.

Heh heh heh.  Worked under NT4, but not under W2K.

That makes it hard to sustain the "Linux won't support my state-of-the-art
hardware" FUD, doesn't it.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

The phrase 3rd party driver and Linux aren't used together in the GPL frame.

Quote:>The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified software
>is also a red herring.  Software doesn't have to be certified to run
>flawlessly.  I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
>certify to save money.

Hope this helps.

Charlie

Hi Roy,

Sorry for duplicating your posting Roy (but the title was cryptic).

Regards,
Adam

Weeeeellllll... so vendors dont even bother to release drivers for the "top
OS".. Uhh... did someone mention "tremendous learning curve"  and "cost"
and "complex" and "availability" and "interobility problems"..

Man those real users must be smoking something.. ehhh Erik

Ahh.. its probably the "fast find" program again

--
Cheers

Quote:> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html

> > This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you count
> > poor 3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case Linux
> > has even more problems there).

> > The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified
software
> > is also a red herring.  Software doesn't have to be certified to run
> > flawlessly.  I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
> > certify to save money.

> Weeeeellllll... so vendors dont even bother to release drivers for the
"top
> OS".. Uhh... did someone mention "tremendous learning curve"  and "cost"
> and "complex" and "availability" and "interobility problems"..

Why are you people so incapable of reading?  There *ARE* drivers for it,
they're just not good drivers.  There's a difference between certifying your
drivers and software and releasing it.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:49:17 -0600,

 brought forth the following words...:

So are you saying here that some of the drivers which are claimed to work with
W2K are not released? So what's the word for something that's claimed to be
available, yet isn't... Oh, I know, vapourware... that's it.

--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
        Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.

What the *.  READ.  The drivers are released, they are *NOT* certified.
You can get the drivers.  Download them off the companies web site.  They
simply have not gone through the MS certification program to verify that
they are reliable.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:49:17 -0600,
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^

Quote:>> and "complex" and "availability" and "interobility problems"..

        ^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:>Why are you people so incapable of reading?  

Why can't *you* read!!! It's obvious you didn't read the article at all:

  "After extensive investigations we have learned that the reliability
   of the network card drivers under the operating system we have been
   using, Windows 2000, is known to be poor"

Quote:>There *ARE* drivers for it,
>they're just not good drivers.  There's a difference between certifying your
>drivers and software and releasing it.

Poor reliability means they can't be certified. Yet the drivers worked
well under NT4. Now tell us some hardware where Linux kernel 2.4 has
broken drivers compared to 2.2.

Also:
   "The fact is, there are significant (win 2K) interoperability problems with
    other software"

Tell us where kernel 2.4 breaks applications compared to 2.2.

    "with driver availability"

See above.

    "not to mention the tremendous learning curve"

No tremendous learning curve switching from 2.2 to 2.4. Why such a
learning curve for those who migrate to Win2k.

    "cost of change of implementating W2K"

No money out of my pocket for upgrading my Linux.

Quote:> Hi Roy,

> Sorry for duplicating your posting Roy (but the title was cryptic).

> Regards,
> Adam

No need to be sorry. The article was worth having several people
bring it to the attention of the Microsoft trolls. They keep saying
that companies are adopting W2K. The Gartner group in 1999 said
that with year 2000 approaching it would be foolish to adopt W2K.
Yet the Microsoft trolls kept saying in 2000 that many companies
are using it. Well now it is one less (that we know about) and
Gartner are saying that W2K sales are less than 10% when they
expected 20%. No wonder Microsoft won't release sales figures.
I'm really looking forward to their next quarters results. With
their share over $50 I would sell sell sell if I had any.

On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:57:38 -0600,

 brought forth the following words...:

Quote:>> >Why are you people so incapable of reading?  There *ARE* drivers for it,
>> >they're just not good drivers.  There's a difference between certifying
>your
>> >drivers and software and releasing it.

So they are not certified to work with W2K, right?

Quote:

>> So are you saying here that some of the drivers which are claimed to work
>with
>> W2K are not released? So what's the word for something that's claimed to
>be
>> available, yet isn't... Oh, I know, vapourware... that's it.

>What the *.  READ.  The drivers are released, they are *NOT* certified.
>You can get the drivers.  Download them off the companies web site.  They
>simply have not gone through the MS certification program to verify that
>they are reliable.

WTF "(hey! profanity *soo* helps get your point across don't you think?)

So, we have drivers, which are available, are touted as working with W2K, and
don't, or do so poorly that the customer's "feel the pain"

slick... so it's ok when W2K drivers are crappy, but if linux drivers are
crappy then that's some sort of a slam against linux? I get it...

--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
        Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.

Right.

Quote:> >> So are you saying here that some of the drivers which are claimed to
work
> >with
> >> W2K are not released? So what's the word for something that's claimed
to
> >be
> >> available, yet isn't... Oh, I know, vapourware... that's it.

> >What the *.  READ.  The drivers are released, they are *NOT*
certified.
> >You can get the drivers.  Download them off the companies web site.  They
> >simply have not gone through the MS certification program to verify that
> >they are reliable.

> WTF "(hey! profanity *soo* helps get your point across don't you think?)

I was getting pretty frustrated with people simply not reading what was
right there in front of them, and then claiming I said something I didn't.
You're right, the profanity wasn't necessary.

Quote:> So, we have drivers, which are available, are touted as working with W2K,
and
> don't, or do so poorly that the customer's "feel the pain"

Poor hardware and drivers exist.  That's a fact of life.  It's up to the
customer to work with reputable companies that deliver what they promise.

Quote:> slick... so it's ok when W2K drivers are crappy, but if linux drivers are
> crappy then that's some sort of a slam against linux? I get it...

Linux developers write the drivers for Linux.  Often times it's the same
people that are working on the kernel itself.

In comparison, the drivers mentioned are 3rd party.  I don't hold poor 3rd
party drivers against Linux (well, except of course if there are no
alternatives to them).