Mandrake 9.2 crashes LG CD-ROM drives

That sort of makes my point. :lol:

Who said anything about it being a good thing if one OS dominates the market is a good thing.

I assume you think I favor Microsoft. If any of my friends could hear you, they would be laughing themselves silly. I actually prefer: not Windows, not Unix, not Linux but the Macintosh. And now with OS X, we have the best of both worlds - the marriage of Mac and Unix.

I myself have about 8 PCs, some I use for my work, others as lab rats. At the moment I have 7 windows machines, 1 Linux box and 1 Mac G4. I like the Mac, but my work has been in the Windows world for years.

We have zealots for all OSs (and other interests as well). Zealots, regardless of what their zeal is for, tend to be ignorant of facts.

Windows zealots think windows is the best OS around, as to Linux zealots about Linux and Mac zealots about Macs. Personally, I feel we owe more to the Mac than to any other operating system. That is not to say that Windows is not a good OS or that Linux is not one.

We owe a ton to Apple for coming up with the Mac (Lisa). Now before we get into the argument of whether or not Apple “invented” the GUI interface - they did not. But that is like saying that Henry Ford didn’t invent the automobile if he didn’t invent the wheel. Everything builds on what came before. Most people tend to miss that.

We would not have windows if it wasn’t for the Mac. We also wouldn’t have Linux, if it wasn’t for Unix and we wouldn’t have had the Linux GUIs without the Mac.

Apple spent around 50 million dollars to create the Lisa, which did not sell well. Suppose that Apple decided to pack it in after that. No Mac would have been invented. It wasn’t that Apple invented the GUI and mouse, but it popularized it and made it affordable to you and me.

We do have moments in time that define our direction. Parc Xerox came up with innovations such as: laser printing, Ethernet, object oriented programming and the graphical user interface. But these were not defining moments. If all these technologies stopped there, then they would be interesting ideas that came to nothing, as many innovative ideas do. And we were coming close to that point as Parc Xerox had a habit of dropping the ball.

At the time, there were all kinds of computers on the markets: Apple II, Radio Shack TRS 80, Atari, Commodore, Kaypro and on and on. But there was nothing really special about any of them. They all did essentially the same thing.

Apple sees Parc Xerox interface, likes it, and spends 50 million dollars to create the Lisa, which in itself didn’t do well - cost too much and not enough software. But the Macintosh follows and is a big success and the direction of computers changes. Unix doesn’t do it, MSDos, doesn’t do it, IBM doesn’t do it. As a matter a fact Apple had to fight to get people to accept the idea of using a mouse. Everyone just considered it a toy. Now, you don’t buy a computer without a mouse (or similar pointing device). BTW, many people think that Apple stole the idea from Xerox. They did not. Steve Jobs negotiated a deal involving a large sum of Apple stock, to be able to come back and learn more about the interface. He also hired some of the Xerox researchers to help with the Lisa and Mac development. They did not copy the ideas. They used the ideas to create their own GUI.

Apples sales of the Mac starts to drop and it puts much of its effort into their laser printer and Postscript as well as painting and drawing programs. And Desktop Publishing was changed forever. Many offices are Windows or Linux shops, but still use the Macintosh for their desktop publishing chores, even now.

Macs were a little expensive and proprietary which allowed Gates to step in with a cheaper and more flexible solution that met many peoples needs. Because of Gates philosophy of getting the product to the masses, even if not perfect, allowed him to take over much of the market. He was also able to break into the business market, something Apple was not able to do. Microsoft’s philosophy of licensing the OS allows them to flood the market and creates opportunities, which were not there previously, for many companies to build computers and peripherals for windows.

There is an excellent movie, “Pirates of Silicon Valley”, which shows the rise of both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in parallel. It is interesting to see their different philosophies (neither of which as changed). Jobs was obsessed with innovation and making his stuff work right. Gates didn’t care where he got his stuff, he just wanted it and if it wasn’t perfect that was OK. There is a great line in the movie that essentially goes like this. Jobs and Gates are in his garage and Jobs figures out that Gates has outflanked him. He tells Gates - “Our stuff is better, we have better stuff”. To which Gates replies, “you still don’t get it, it doesn’t matter”. The same thing happened to Sony and the Betamax.

Then there is the group that likes Unix, for various reasons. But Unix is expensive and the different companies that controlled the OS, made it difficult for the ordinary users to have access to it. The code was becoming more and more closed. Then Linux is born. It is free and the source is open, something neither windows nor the Mac are.

The point here is that there is no way to really say which OS is best nor do we want any OS to completely dominate the market. Each has its own strength and weaknesses. And we all have our reasons or biases for choosing one over the other.

Some people will not understand this statement. THERE IS NO BEST COMPUTER. There, however, is a best computer for a particular person or situation. My father-in-law would be lost with a Linux machine. Would not know where to start. He could take a Mac home and very quickly pick it up. Most businesses will go to Windows because there is a wealth of software out there and the majority of businesses use Windows. If someone wants the ability to play with the source of the OS or have a solid server that stays up forever, then Linux would probably be best for them.

So to answer your question, I do think one OS is a bad thing. I prefer choices. I would not like to see Windows source opened up. We already have one open source OS. Why do you need another? What would you gain from it? Look at the problem you have with Linux. Just look at Chris’s post a just before mine. You have different kernels, different GUIs. Some programs work on this kernel, but not on that GUI. You typically don’t have that with the Mac or Windows (except for the odd game that won’t work on NT or some program that needs NT to run).

I also never wanted the Macs source to be opened up. You can keep your code closed and proprietary and still keep developers competitive. When the Mac came out, they also came out with a couple of huge volumes of manuals with all the calls and options used by the Mac as well as detailed descriptions and diagrams of how to use them. Windows, on the other hand, tries to skew the market place by giving the development market access to their documented API for NT, but hides the NTs Native API and only Microsoft and selected vendors can get access to it. This gives some developers a distinct advantage over others.

IMHO.

I think I went a little overboard here. There was always a little more to add as I went along. I think I answered Sahirhs question, though. What do you think?

I graciously concede that (most) of your points are factually correct and true

However, (here we go )

You have different kernels, different GUIs. Some programs work on this kernel, but not on that GUI.

Misconception - there is only ONE linux kernel (currently the 2.4.x series), what you do have are many distributions, that package different software suites with the kernel. As far as different GUI's, once again incorrect, there is XFree86 which is the display server.. and then on top of that you have different Window Managers (eg KDE, Gnome). You actually have a similar concept in windows.. you don't have to use explorer as your default shell, you can use litestep, or any of the other window management replacements. The only difference is that when you buy windows you don't get them bundled to give you the option.

Admitted there was initially the whole KDE vs Gnome thing, but that was only because KDE was based on certain libraries that were not free, thus the GNU people wanted to boycott KDE (return of the zealots). Now that issue has been resolved, just about everything I have tried to run runs perfectly well in both KDE and Gnome.

Your point about the right tool for the job is spot on, there is absolutely no logic in sticking typists with CLI based NIX machines and telling them to type things in vi. However I believe that innovation comes about when people get to look at other peoples ideas, decide how they could make it better, and then adapt it.

Actual invention occurs very rarely.. innovation -- the building upon an invention -- is what occurs more often, is healthy, and required if you don't want the industry to stagnate. As you said all companies are 'inspired' from various other products, and then incorporate that into their product. And as you said this is a good thing !

The new Mac OS X rocks -- they've incorporated unix for alot of the internal plumbing, and in exchange they're giving the open source community access to some of their graphics libraries. Of course the open source community in typical (zealot) fashion, are wary of anything that is commercial because people have begun to misunderstand the connotation of 'free software'. The whole concept of 'free' software DOES NOT define COMMERCIALLY FREE ! It defines free to modify, copy, distort, mangle and pass on to other people whether for a fee or not ! Commercially free software is FREEWARE.

To illustrate :
Red Hat sells Red Hat Linux commerically, but it is still a FREE O/S because anyone who wants can open up the source and have a look around. This encourages innovation IMHO.

For example there have been many times where I've wanted to write code for something and I've looked at the source of a similar program and 'stolen' code for my own program, modifying it to suit a purpose better.

Of course there is no best OS, each has a niche that it serves well. I'm not a windows basher (contrary to belief), I'm not a linux zealot.. I boot direct into WinXP, however the things that I do get done best under the linux o/s and its development model. I do however feel that something should be done to work against an economic monopoly that actively spends its time trying to create barriers to entry for any other company.. remember a company called Netscape that used to have a really good product ? In most peoples opinion a better product than IE (at the time)

However as Bill Gates so rightly said "it doesn't matter". So when LG goes and makes a drive that dies on consumers who want to try something other than the accepted norm, nothing happens, less people will view <insert lesser market share os here> as a viable alternative -- and their reasoning is valid, because it is not as well supported --

But how can you ever make a choice when there's only one product thats allowed to parade ?
Its like the 'elections' held in certain Asian country recently where the only candidate you could vote for was the dictator in power.
(I don't want to start a political flamewar, just an example).

Hmm yes we've both gone a bit overboard, its a tail chasing debate, fun nonetheless

btw Chris -- Red Hat is way better than Mandrakes, I do use it, just happened to notice the LG CD-ROM problem somewhere.

AAAAHHHH!!!!

I can't believe I am going to have to answer this again. I had almost finished my reply when I accidently closed the browser - not sure what I did, but I am not happy. :x

OK, let's see if I can get it right this time without losing it.

Misconception - there is only ONE linux kernel (currently the 2.4.x series), what you do have are many distributions, that package different software suites with the kernel

I stand corrected. There is only one kernel

As far as different GUI's, once again incorrect, there is XFree86 which is the display server.. and then on top of that you have different Window Managers (eg KDE, Gnome).

Here I take exception. It is all a matter of semantics and depends who you talk to. xFree86 is an implementation of X Windows. It is part of the GUI. A GUI (Graphic User Interface) is just that an interface between the display hardware (video display, mouse and keyboard) and the desktop environment (which is also refered to as the desktop manager or windows manager). There are 2 types of interfaces: CLI - command line interpreter (shell) and GUI -graphic user interface. The interface is how the user interfaces with the computer. In the GUI, this is done grapically using windows, buttons, scrollbars etc. This is to make it more user friendly (easier for the average user than using a command line). Now the user does not talk directly to xFree86, but does it through a windows manager. All three componants make up the GUI - windows manager, xFree86 and display hardware.

Now that issue has been resolved, just about everything I have tried to run runs perfectly well in both KDE and Gnome.

Just about? If this is true, why do some vendors only guarantee support for one or two GUI interfaces?

However I believe that innovation comes about when people get to look at other peoples ideas, decide how they could make it better, and then adapt it.

The operative word is "ideas". And just because you make something better, you are not necessarily being innovative. Windows 98 was better that Windows 95, but it wasn't innovative. Apple is the only innovative company I can think of at the moment. Neither Windows nor Linux is innovative. They get better, but that does not make them innovative. My definition of innovation is the process of created something substantially new and different. What was the last thing Windows created that was new. The same with Linux.

Actual invention occurs very rarely.. innovation -- the building upon an invention -- is what occurs more often, is healthy, and required if you don't want the industry to stagnate.

I agree here. But building on an idea, doesn't mean you need to take someones source and change it. Apple doesn't use other peoples code and still innovates. I don't think anyone would say that Apple is stagnate.

To illustrate :
Red Hat sells Red Hat Linux commerically, but it is still a FREE O/S because anyone who wants can open up the source and have a look around. This encourages innovation IMHO.

OK, I agree what Linux is and what a free OS is. But really, what has Linux created that is different or new (I mean substantially). Are you really going to tell me that Linux which freely distributes the source is comparable to Apple when it comes to innovation ???? I am not denegrating Linux. I think it is a great OS and is solid and has its place. But open source does not necessarily encourage innovation. If this were the case, Apple would not be innovative.

For example there have been many times where I've wanted to write code for something and I've looked at the source of a similar program and 'stolen' code for my own program, modifying it to suit a purpose better.

I agree that that is what is good about using someone else's source. I do it all the time. I get it from books or on the internet. It is a great way to learn and not reinvent the wheel.

However, if I were to take a normal "Hello World" sample from a book and make changes to the code to pass in my name and have the program display "Hello World, from TFS". I have now modified it. It is better than the previous program. But I would never call that innovative.

I do however feel that something should be done to work against an economic monopoly that actively spends its time trying to create barriers to entry for any other company.. remember a company called Netscape that used to have a really good product ? In most peoples opinion a better product than IE (at the time)

Totally, agree with you, here. However, I don't know where I stand on the Netscape/IE question. Do you use IE or Netscape? You could get Netscape for free, just like IE, but people still eventually went to IE. Is it fair to all the average users, who would like to just start up their new computer and jump right into a browser, to force them to do something a little more inconvenient like purchase Netscape (remember, they would have no browser to download a free copy if it wasn't on their new OS). But at the same time is it fair to Netscape, who will obviously have a harder time then Microsoft to push their browser if Microsoft includes it on their OS. What browser is free on Linux? Is that fair?

But how can you ever make a choice when there's only one product thats allowed to parade ?

Where do you not have a choice? The fact that LG doesn't work, doesn't take away your choice. It just means that more people will choose not to use the drive and will vote with their dollar by buying something else. LG is not the only game in town, is it?

You're right it is an unwinable debate. Doesn't mean it's not fun - as is shown by the amount of time we've spent on it. :lol:

Commenting on Mac's and my limited experience with them, they seem to be very stable machines but with also limited software.

Comparing a MAC pc to a Windows machine is like comparing a Novell File Server with a Windows NT/2000 File Server.

The Novell operating system is by far more stable and superior than the Windows NT/2000 but lacks the application support available. Combine this, along with an incorrect and sloppy advertising campaign and you can see why Novell has lost such a great deal of customers.

On the other hand, there tends to be a large amount of people who knock the MAC's constantly, and I must admit ... I'm one of them as well :lol: but this doesn’t mean I fail to see what they are capable of.

Perhaps one of my most favorite knock off's I've seen for the MAC's is a picture where the monitor from a MAC was used as a rubbish bin and below it there was the well known slogan "Think Different".

If I find it, I'll post it so you guys can check it out, its quite funny.