Reply to All

Reply to All

Post by George Lo » Sun, 19 Jul 1992 07:37:40



Quote:(George Long) writes:
>  First, I have SEVERE m*problems with using a system
>  that supports 3 graphics cards to use all the features.  It really isn't
>  that difficult to write it to conform to some of the other major brands.

        I'm not really sure what you mean here, but if it's not so difficult
to write in this support, let Linus continue working on what he's working
on and write the graphic card support yourself.  What's available seems to
work fine for most of us.

        * Well, well well, we can't all be C programmers can we? Let's
        * you say that there is a 4K BGI file for Pascal that lets one
        * use MANY SVGA cards... In addition, the difference between
        * all the different cards is just a few lines of code which are
        * found in SVGA programming books... When I hear people going out and
        * replacing perfectly good video cards I laugh... People probably
        * feel that is a lot cheaper to buy hardware for software seeing
        * how much real UNIX os's cost... This is ridiculous.  

Quote:>  In addition, what I hear about not supporting a bus mouse is intolerable.  

        Well then, don't use it.  

        * That kind of attitude, just like the rest of your message
        * isn't going to get you many users.  While as someone pointed out
        * there ARE patches, why can't these be implemented directly into
        * the program???

Quote:>  Basically, these two drawbacks will cause me not to use Linux despite the
>  fact that I do have a serial mouse.  However, that is not the point of my
>  message, but that these minor problems should be addressed before major
>  changes are made.

        Well, pardon me for being so overtly distraught at your post,
but we (the users and developers of linux) are not losing anything
from your refusal to use linux.  In fact, I dare say that we gain
not having to listen to you complain about features that you feel should
have been written in that have not been.  

        * Am I asking for MAJOR features?  Proper graphics support should
        * be a "basic" computer user's right. :)....  You make it sound
        * like I am asking for the ability to run MAC, Amiga, and Atari
        * ST programs, etc...

Linux is very much a distributed
development project taken on by a diverse group of talented programmers,
documenters, and users (with much of the work and insight coming from
Linus, of course); if you think there are deficiencies that need
to be overcome and you want to use this OS, then join in and constructively
help overcome these shortcomings.  

        * That may be the problem.  What I see here is a piece of software
        * that is trying to go ahead so quickly that it leaves things
        * half-done and with little support.  When you are writing an
        * operating system this is unforgivable.  While I recognize the
        * fact that this is in "alpha" or whatever, this seems to me
        * a poor way of going about the project.

Otherwise, go buy a commercial
version of Unix and then you have a right to complain about your
supplier not providing you with what you paid for.

        * Like I said, I don't expect this to have everything... But when
        * you add features, go all the way...

        I should probably direct this post to a couple of people who make
these 'constructive' criticism posts every now and then, but you were lucky
enough to add the last straw to this particular camel.  Your constructive
criticism was not very constructive.  

        * As usual in these programming parterships, when someone makes
        * a comment you are quick to flame, because you feel that you
        * know what is best.  But who are you really writing this for,
        * you or all the people out there?

Quote:>  BTW, how does the DOS emulator work for it?

        (I'll refrain from being even more snide here.)

        * Hmm, that sounded like one of it's best features...

        * P.S.  Don't you think it would be cheaper to hire a professional
        * programmer to write support for your video card than to buy
        * a whole new one for $100+ ?

 
 
 

Reply to All

Post by Ben C » Sun, 19 Jul 1992 08:42:17



Quote:>    * replacing perfectly good video cards I laugh... People probably
>    * feel that is a lot cheaper to buy hardware for software seeing
>    * how much real UNIX os's cost... This is ridiculous.  

What do you mean this is ridiculous?  ET4000 cards can be had for
under $200.  Show me a commercial unix for ANYTHING LIKE that price
which is more functional than Linux.

Quote:>    * Am I asking for MAJOR features?  Proper graphics support should
>    * be a "basic" computer user's right. :)....  You make it sound
>    * like I am asking for the ability to run MAC, Amiga, and Atari
>    * ST programs, etc...

It's only your "basic" right if you paid for it.

You have NO "basic right" to anything that anyone else writes for free.

Quote:>    * That may be the problem.  What I see here is a piece of software
>    * that is trying to go ahead so quickly that it leaves things
>    * half-done and with little support.  When you are writing an
>    * operating system this is unforgivable.  While I recognize the

What is unforgivable is you *ing about a free program.

Quote:>    * P.S.  Don't you think it would be cheaper to hire a professional
>    * programmer to write support for your video card than to buy
>    * a whole new one for $100+ ?

#     #    #    #     #    #    #     #    #
#     #   # #   #     #   # #   #     #   # #
#     #  #   #  #     #  #   #  #     #  #   #
####### #     # ####### #     # ####### #     #  (belly laugh)
#     # ####### #     # ####### #     # #######
#     # #     # #     # #     # #     # #     #
#     # #     # #     # #     # #     # #     #

This is a good one indeed.

Look, George.  Hit "u" now.  Go away.  We don't need you.

--
Ben Cox


 
 
 

Reply to All

Post by f6930.. » Sun, 19 Jul 1992 12:30:16


From scheme.cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!destroyer!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!glong Fri Jul 17 20:00:25 PDT 1992
Article: 6089 of comp.os.linux
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: scheme.cs.ubc.ca!ubc-cs!destroyer!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!glong

Subject: Reply to All



Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 22:37:40 GMT
Lines: 90

George says:
.
.
.
|>>       * replacing perfectly good video cards I laugh... People probably
|>>       * feel that is a lot cheaper to buy hardware for software seeing
|>>       * how much real UNIX os's cost... This is ridiculous.  
.
.
.
|>>       * P.S.  Don't you think it would be cheaper to hire a professional
|>>       * programmer to write support for your video card than to buy
|>>       * a whole new one for $100+ ?

I am truely sorry to waste bandwidth like this, and I am one of those
who would like to have c.o.l turn back into a hacker's newsgroup, but
I simply had to reply to this article.  I have been reading newsgroups
since I was 16 years old, and have even lasted through months of some of
the silliest discussions on gnu.misc.discuss over the multiple
definitions of the word "free", but I have never in this time seen
anyone this stupid on the net.  I say this honestly and without
slander.  

Look George, I represent one of those companies that do custom UNIX
programming for SYSV unices on PC's.  I charge my SCO customers
$55/hr to go over to their office and fix their .login file and tell
them how the many options of 'ls' work.  SCO charges over $800 just
to talk to them on the phone for a year.  We charge over
$2000 for SYSV systems that offer very little more than linux.
Please shut up now --
you have allready ruined you reputation on the net forever so please
don't make it any worse for yourself.

To the rest of us...  Please, lets let this rest.  I know I am
breaking good netting practice by even responding to a post like this
but seriously...  I am in awe at how someone can come across so
completely clueless as to the world around him in so few lines of text...

- Ken

 
 
 

Reply to All

Post by Bill L » Mon, 20 Jul 1992 00:48:45



>    * Well, well well, we can't all be C programmers can we? Let's
>    * you say that there is a 4K BGI file for Pascal that lets one
>    * use MANY SVGA cards... In addition, the difference between
>    * all the different cards is just a few lines of code which are
>    * found in SVGA programming books... When I hear people going out and
>    * replacing perfectly good video cards I laugh... People probably
>    * feel that is a lot cheaper to buy hardware for software seeing
>    * how much real UNIX os's cost... This is ridiculous.  

Hmmm...  Yes the differences posted in the SVGA programming books are a
couple of lines.  Why don't you add them?  However, then you'll find that
its not quite so simple...
--

SFU claims these views....NOT!
 
 
 

Reply to All

Post by James Henricks » Mon, 20 Jul 1992 03:02:37


I was going to stay out of it, but this guy just won't give up!


>(George Long) writes:

>>  First, I have SEVERE m*problems with using a system
>>  that supports 3 graphics cards to use all the features.  It really isn't
>>  that difficult to write it to conform to some of the other major brands.

3 graphics cards?  That's 3 chip sets!  And then you're only talking about
X.

Quote:>    * Well, well well, we can't all be C programmers can we? Let's
>    * you say that there is a 4K BGI file for Pascal that lets one
>    * use MANY SVGA cards... In addition, the difference between
>    * all the different cards is just a few lines of code which are
>    * found in SVGA programming books... When I hear people going out and
>    * replacing perfectly good video cards I laugh... People probably
>    * feel that is a lot cheaper to buy hardware for software seeing
>    * how much real UNIX os's cost... This is ridiculous.  

I suggest you take a look at supported devices for commercial Unix systems
before you criticize Linux.  Linux hackers make something work for their
system first, then think about supporting other equipment.  Linux runs on the
majority of clones, and support for others is an ongoing job.  Show me a
software package that was written from the start to support every piece of
hardware.  There is a reason, you know.

I would also like to point out that Turbo Pascal hasn't ALWAYS supported
many SVGA cards.  In fact, they haven't done so until recently.  The first
such SVGA BGI files I saw were written by other people and posted on the
networks as shareware.  Of course, I would expect more video cards to be
supported by a company that has so many upgrades every year.  Believe me,
you are paying for it!

Quote:>>  In addition, what I hear about not supporting a bus mouse is intolerable.  

>    Well then, don't use it.  

>    * That kind of attitude, just like the rest of your message
>    * isn't going to get you many users.  While as someone pointed out
>    * there ARE patches, why can't these be implemented directly into
>    * the program???

Perhaps you should read the digests and see what Linus said about patches
being incorporated into future Linux releases.  We have better things to
do than to justify to you why Linux isn't "all things to all people" yet.

Quote:>    * Am I asking for MAJOR features?  Proper graphics support should
>    * be a "basic" computer user's right. :)....  You make it sound
>    * like I am asking for the ability to run MAC, Amiga, and Atari
>    * ST programs, etc...

You provide the equipment, the documentation, and a decent paycheck, and
I'll add any feature you want (provided it is not impossible). :-)

I think you should blame the graphics cards manufacturers for not making
them all the same.  This has been a headache for many people.

Quote:>    * That may be the problem.  What I see here is a piece of software
>    * that is trying to go ahead so quickly that it leaves things
>    * half-done and with little support.  When you are writing an
>    * operating system this is unforgivable.  While I recognize the
>    * fact that this is in "alpha" or whatever, this seems to me
>    * a poor way of going about the project.

Unforgivable?  Then *YOU* write an operating system after you first learn
how to program in C.  Linux supports most clones, so you hardly have a
point.  It would take a lifetime to support every buggy motherboard or
every type of video card, and by then these machines will have been
abondoned in favor of the Intel *80986* !  Linus is using a method that
a lot of other operating system writers have used.  Write the code for
a target machine that is representative of an average clone, and THEN add
support for others.  There are a lot of testers here that help Linus to
support other machines.

Quote:>Otherwise, go buy a commercial
>version of Unix and then you have a right to complain about your
>supplier not providing you with what you paid for.

>    * Like I said, I don't expect this to have everything... But when
>    * you add features, go all the way...

If you go back and read the digests, you will see that it is hard to write
code if you can't test it.  Look at the scsi drivers.  Linus didn't have
a scsi drive, but he wrote the kernel so that others could add support.
It doesn't make much sense to blindly code stuff and HOPE it works.  It
often results in a waste of time.  Time that can be spent developing stuff
that you CAN test.

Quote:>    * As usual in these programming parterships, when someone makes
>    * a comment you are quick to flame, because you feel that you
>    * know what is best.  But who are you really writing this for,
>    * you or all the people out there?

Who are *YOU* writing this for?  I'll leave out a few guesses.  :-)

Quote:>>  BTW, how does the DOS emulator work for it?

>    (I'll refrain from being even more snide here.)

>    * Hmm, that sounded like one of it's best features...

Personally, I'd like to see support for a cheap add-in board for running
DOS and displaying it in a window in X.  It should provide better
performance than V86 mode, and wouldn't require as many modifications to
the kernel.

I wouldn't expect to see much in the line of a DOS emulator until the
kernel has reached a more steady state.  The previous version got broken
by a newer kernel release.

Quote:>    * P.S.  Don't you think it would be cheaper to hire a professional
>    * programmer to write support for your video card than to buy
>    * a whole new one for $100+ ?

I seriously doubt it.  How much do you expect to pay a professional
programmer per hour?  If we wanted to pay the money for a professional
programmer, maybe we'd all have the money for TIGA cards!

--
Jim H.
*

* "Yet another Jim in the Linux world."  :-)

 
 
 

Reply to All

Post by Bryan Curnu » Mon, 20 Jul 1992 04:38:15


[If you're sick of this whole "SEVERE moral problems using Linux" thing,
hit 'n' now.  If you're thinking of flaming Linux developers because
Linux doesn't have the features you want, please read this first!]

The ever-popular George Long writes:

>         * Well, well well, we can't all be C programmers can we?

Um, yes, actually we can.  Linux is still under development, and isn't
really ready yet for end-user-type people.  That's why it's often
referred to as a "hacker's OS."  True, there are a lot of non-programmers
using Linux now, but for the most part they politely ask for help when
they have problems rather than declaring the problem "intolerable" or
saying they have "SEVERE moral problems" with the OS.  And the funny
thing is, they usually get help!

>         * ... In addition, the difference between
>         * all the different cards is just a few lines of code which are
>         * found in SVGA programming books...

If you're not a programmer, you really don't have any realistic basis
for saying that something "isn't that difficult to write."

If you are a programmer, and you think it isn't difficult to write,
then by all means write it!  People who have the SVGA card(s) that you
write support for will be very grateful to you.

If you are unable or unwilling to write support for every existing SVGA
card, I'm genuinely curious about this moral high ground you're taking:
Are you saying that Linus, or whoever you believe is morally responsible
for making sure that every program works on every card, should have to
spend the money to buy a video card for every SVGA chipset in existence?

You can't effectively support hardware that you don't have, you know,
even if at first glance support appears to be "just a few lines of code
which are found in... books..."  Linux works on the variety of hardware
it does because there are programmers who have that hardware who are
able and willing to test software and contribute code to make the
software work on their hardware.

> >  In addition, what I hear about not supporting a bus mouse is intolerable.  

>         Well then, don't use it.  

>         * That kind of attitude, just like the rest of your message
>         * isn't going to get you many users.

Well, we don't really *want* many users of the type who declare something
"intolerable" on the basis of hearsay without checking into the facts.

>           While as someone pointed out
>         * there ARE patches, why can't these be implemented directly into
>         * the program???

I can't speak for Linus, or Orest Zborowski, or Thomas Roell, or
whoever's software you're looking for bus mouse support for, but
before Linux reaches the production version, they probably WILL be
included.

> >  these minor problems should be addressed before major
> >  changes are made.

The bus mouse problem has been addressed by the patches, which
I believe will probably be included in future versions at some
point.  The video problems are a little harder to address, since
you haven't stated exactly what you'd like to see supported.  I
don't think Linux development should grind to a halt until every
conceivable piece of hardware is supported by the current version.

> [..] we (the users and developers of linux) are not losing anything
> from your refusal to use linux.  In fact, I dare say that we gain
> not having to listen to you complain [...]

>         * Am I asking for MAJOR features?

Yes.  You're asking (well, "telling," actually) us that the OS must
conform to your moral imperatives.  You're saying that the OS *must*
support hardware that the developers don't have, and would have to
buy before they could support it properly.  You're telling us that
the pre-release, still-under-development version of the freely
available OS must provide better hardware support than most commercial
operating systems that have been available for years.

>           Proper graphics support should
>         * be a "basic" computer user's right. :)....

Thank you for putting a smiley there!  It makes your post much more
digestible...

>           You make it sound
>         * like I am asking for the ability to run MAC, Amiga, and Atari
>         * ST programs, etc...

Aha!  Is the problem, then, that you have a specific video board that
you're asking to be supported?  If so, maybe you can say that, and
tell us specifically what board you have that doesn't work, rather
than telling us that Linux is morally unacceptible.  Maybe someone
out there has a similar board and would be willing to add software
support for it.

> Linux is very much a distributed
> development project taken on by a diverse group of talented programmers,

>         * That may be the problem.  What I see here is a piece of software
>         * that is trying to go ahead so quickly that it leaves things
>         * half-done and with little support.

To my amazement, you've actually hit upon a valid point here.  Linux
*is* moving quickly, and there are some problems as a result of that.
If that bothers you, you'll be much happier with a package that moves
more slowly and has a more centralized development base.  Try Bill
Jolitz's 386BSD, which has a much more coherent and centralized base
than Linux.  Or wait for GNU HURD.  But if you have problems with
those packages, as with Linux, you're still going to get a *much* better
response if you politely ask for help rather than making obnoxious
remarks like

>           When you are writing an
>         * operating system this is unforgivable.

People aren't responding to you the way they are because of what
you're saying, in terms of Linux's deficiencies, it's because of
the way you say it.  Phrases like "... SEVERE moral problems using a
system that...," "what I hear... is intolerable," and "... this is
unforgivable," especially if you're not willing and/or able to help
make things better, are NOT likely to win you any friends, get you
any help, or make people take you seriously even if you have valid
technical points to make.

>           While I recognize the
>         * fact that this is in "alpha" or whatever, this seems to me
>         * a poor way of going about the project.

Perhaps it is.  Perhaps it isn't.  It seems to work for Linux, as
Linux is intended to be used in its current form -- it has come a
very far way in a very short time, and is *very* different from the
first Linux system which was publically released less than a year
ago, because of the contributions of many programmers around the
world.  Other projects are handled differently.

>         * Like I said, I don't expect this to have everything...

Then what, precisely, stated in terms that aren't highly emotionally
charged with negativity, *do* you expect it to have?

>         * As usual in these programming parterships, when someone makes
>         * a comment you are quick to flame,

Who flamed whom?  Your post was highly negative, so much so that the
negativity obscured any constructive value that may have been present.

> >  BTW, how does the DOS emulator work for it?

>         (I'll refrain from being even more snide here.)

>         * Hmm, that sounded like one of it's best features...

You mean the lack of a DOS emulator?  You may be right. :-)
It would be easier for me to get Linux used as the standard system
at work if it had one, though, since we have so much DOS software. :-(
But it's still not important enough to me that I want to take the
time to write one. :-O

>         * P.S.  Don't you think it would be cheaper to hire a professional
>         * programmer to write support for your video card than to buy
>         * a whole new one for $100+ ?

Not any of the professional programmers *I* know, unless they're doing
it for the joy of it rather than the money.

I'll make a deal with you, George:  You buy me all of the video cards
you want to see supported, with accompanying technical documentation,
and I'll see what I can do about supporting them.  If you want to be
*certain* it will work on your particular hardware, then buy me a
machine identical to the one you're using.  If you want X support,
you'll also need to buy me a hard disk large enough so I can compile X.
Like any professional programmer who doesn't intend to enter bankruptcy,
I won't make you any promises until I know more about what hardware you
want supported, and what software you want to see working with that
hardware.  If the hardware you want supported is particularly braindead,
I may even refuse the job and refund any payment/equipment you've given
me.

I assure you that the video cards, at least, will be much cheaper
than hiring me as a professional programmer to do the same job.
--
Any opinions above are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of SAI.

Bryan Curnutt                   | "I hope that UNIX is more like my diner
bryan%uhu...@uunet.uu.net       |  than like McDonald's." -- Doug McIlroy