Jump to content

Torvalds takes bite of Mac mini


Alessandro17
 Share

30 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardware/soa/...39271592,00.htm

 

Well,it seems to me that Linus is discussing some issues that we know already very well.

 

Well , Altho I trust what he has to say and his opinions on it,no new tech can grow and get better if people do not support it.So I am willing to give apple a chance with EFI.I tihnk they will make it a great replacement for the bios.

We have to think Apple is new to EFI and hasn't even been using it for a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think linus is saying that the bios is good but its gonna die but not before EFI reach its perfection point.

 

its the same with everithing at first its hip but not great .wich means that when it comes out sounds better but not that much really.

we just have to wait for Apple out of the box programing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this comment by user Aussie_Bear at OSNews worth reading:

 

>> One of the responses in the linked article explains why Linus feels the way he does.

 

Actually, "more modern PCs with EFI" suck in a number of different ways. If you search the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) you will know the technical details.

 

In a nutshell, the old BIOS sucks so bad that every modern OS just uses it for booting, and then ignores it altogether and goes on to do its own thing for scanning the machine for PCI cards and so on. EFI, on the other hand, has more features and those features allow some customization by manufacturers (the "Extensible" part in EFI). If some operations start requiring the OS to do EFI calls (unlike the BIOS, which forces nothing), we get into the same kind of mess as ACPI, with the extensions posing parsing problems, and bugs forcing the OS to work around them. ACPI was also supposed to be more "modern" and stuff, but its complexity as revealed itself to pose more problems than the ones that it was supposed to solve.

 

So, in this case, the BIOS is actually better, because it doesn't get in the way (and doesn't provide any false hope of solving any problems).

 

It has nothing to do with Apple specifically. Linus is criticising EFI itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think the real problem with EFI is (surprise) Microsoft. Because Microsoft is apparently avoiding support for EFI with Vista, EFI will not replace BIOS in the mainstream for years.

 

Had Microsoft any integrity, instead of protecting its illegal monopoly from any potential change that EFI might represent, it would have fully endorsed EFI as being part of the Vista platform. Now we will have to wait to for the next major Windows cycle, perhaps another five to seven years (if not more), for Microsoft to drop BIOS.

 

Then of course, one has to wonder if Microsoft will try to supplant EFI with some propriety firmware system that it controls. That would be just the type of illegal monopolistic strategy we should expect from Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torvalds is like Howard Dean. He'll sit and complain about the unfair monopoly, but then {censored} about the alternative if it doesn't jive toward his own interests. Dividing the oposition and keeping the monololy in power.

 

Good job Linus. Good job. Now get off your ass and make Linux on the desktop easy to use already. Apple took 5 years to do what Linux has still failed to do in 20+ years... write an easy to install/easy to configure stable alternative to a MS Operating System. Linux has come a long way, but still fails miserably when I have to recompile my frickin Kernel just to use a wireless card. Ugh...

 

-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dunno what's wrong with the article. he's not bitching anything.

 

You're right, my comments had nothing to do with the article. Sorry about that. I still think he needs to get off his butt and work on more than just the kernel. He could be the Steve Jobs of the Linux world (People certainly want him to be) and he could standardize Linux in so many ways that Microsoft would be left in the dust.

 

other than that it's just the same story. linux is not meant to be as friendly as others.. even if i find it easy.

 

But why not? Linux could wipe the pants off of all the competition. Open source and free. But it hasn't gotten any further than a developer free-time project. I tried Debian the other day but quit at the point where it asked me what type of mouse I had, and the options didn't include Trackpad or USB mouse. If I can't understand it (and despite having very little Linux knowledge, consider myself pretty computer savvy) how is the average person trying to jump ship from MS going to get it at all?

 

So far my favorite distro is SUSE 10.1. The installation is STILL not stupid-proof yet, but it installs and configures many devices for you. Even my wireless card. Woo hoo!!!

 

=)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torvalds is like Howard Dean. He'll sit and complain about the unfair monopoly, but then {censored} about the alternative if it doesn't jive toward his own interests. Dividing the oposition and keeping the monololy in power.

 

Good job Linus. Good job. Now get off your ass and make Linux on the desktop easy to use already. Apple took 5 years to do what Linux has still failed to do in 20+ years... write an easy to install/easy to configure stable alternative to a MS Operating System. Linux has come a long way, but still fails miserably when I have to recompile my frickin Kernel just to use a wireless card. Ugh...

 

-John

 

 

EXACTLY, thank you for posting that. OSX is light years ahead of Linux, and he is griping? Whatever. I don't hate Linux users, but it is rediculous when I hear them whine when Torvalds and the Linux community would get off their ass and make standardizations in Linux. I have said this for YEARS. OSX is and will always be superior to Linux in all around design, ease of use, etc. until the Linux community quits wanting to be "free". Please, OSX users have been "free" for a while and don't have to compile source code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job Linus. Good job. Now get off your ass and make Linux on the desktop easy to use already. Apple took 5 years to do what Linux has still failed to do in 20+ years... write an easy to install/easy to configure stable alternative to a MS Operating System. Linux has come a long way, but still fails miserably when I have to recompile my frickin Kernel just to use a wireless card. Ugh...

 

Linus writes only the kernel, do you remember? It is up to the distributions to release an easy to use and stable OS.

 

I don't understand your problems with Debian. The Etch installer doesn't ask me what kind of mouse I have. In any case Xandros or Freespire are absolutely idiot proof.

 

And to anyone saying that OS X is so much better than Linux: yes, that is true, but on the other hand don't forget that OS X only supports a very limited set of hardware, while Linux has to support all the hardware in the world.

 

 

Frankly, I think the real problem with EFI is (surprise) Microsoft. Because Microsoft is apparently avoiding support for EFI with Vista, EFI will not replace BIOS in the mainstream for years.

 

Very true. I wrote almost exactly the same thing in another forum.

 

But I want to add the following: somehow I have a feeling: Vista is the beginning of the end for Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I want to add the following: somehow I have a feeling: Vista is the beginning of the end for Microsoft.

 

Although I would like this to be the case, I don't think it will be. Look how far windows has come. Sure, Windows ME sucked, and Microsoft eventually admited this and withdrew it from sale and only sold XP and Windows 98SE for awhile!

 

The average consumer is going to think Vista is wild, and believe it's superior to the Mac OS, and if it's (Vista) slightly less corruptable Virus wise, they'll think it's a tremendous leap forward.

 

Windows 3 (forget entirely about earlier versions) was a horrible parody of the Apple way of computing. Windows 95, although dodgy, was a great effort for Microsoft and made switchers out of many Mac users who realised that they could use a PC. Apple lost their way for awhile and didn't do much; Microsoft continued to update Windows a bit at a time (ie 98 and me). Windows 98 was meant to be the combination of NT and 95, that never happened till XP.

 

Anyway, i've just typed this and then realised it's somewhat off topic! But to round up I think i'd love to see Microsoft loose some market share, apple gain some, and linux gain some too. But as much as for the moment I only want to run OSX and don't see this changing (except booting into windows for games) I don't think i'd like OS X to be in a 95% market share position. I wouldn't trust Apple to be good in this situation. :angel:

 

Let's hope Linux and Mac OS gains market share steadily and steals some marketshare from Microsoft.

Apple should 1) Release a Tablet mac, 'ink' is built into OSX already to support this (they should license the very excelent ArtRage2 for inclusion in the OS as a scribble pad.) and 2) REALLY listen to end users somehow about what they want from the OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope Linux and Mac OS gains market share steadily and steals some marketshare from Microsoft.

Apple should 1) Release a Tablet mac, 'ink' is built into OSX already to support this (they should license the very excelent ArtRage2 for inclusion in the OS as a scribble pad.) and 2) REALLY listen to end users somehow about what they want from the OS.

 

I second that. And let's also hope that Apple listens to what hardware their users want. Personally I'd like very much a mid-range Conroe desktop. I like to believe that I am not the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linus writes only the kernel, do you remember? It is up to the distributions to release an easy to use and stable OS.

 

This is my problem with him. If he really cares about Linux then he needs to step up and push Linux on the Desktop to a point where "real people" (like my in-laws) can install it without getting frustrated. No questions or command line screens, just a pretty status bar as it configures it all for them.

 

I don't understand your problems with Debian.

 

Me neither. It was on a Dell Inspiron Notebook. Once I had finished and rebooted it dumped me in a command line to fend for myself. I would never give this to my family to use.

 

Maybe I'll look into the other versions you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my problem with him. If he really cares about Linux then he needs to step up and push Linux on the Desktop to a point where "real people" (like my in-laws) can install it without getting frustrated. No questions or command line screens, just a pretty status bar as it configures it all for them.

 

That is absolutely impossible. Linux is used and developed by millions of people. Everybody can be a developer. There are about 400 active distributions. Not even a god could do what you suggest. "Just" looking after the kernel is more than a full time job.

 

As I already wrote, it is up to some distributions making Linux user friendly: Freespire/Linspire, Xandros, Mandriva, SUSE...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree.

even if there is a common seed(the kernel),the GNU-linux development is highly decentralized. all is on the developers shoulders. each distro is different with different structure and has different targets in mind.

some examples: if you are a developer or an enthusiast, surely you'll go for a meta-distro as gentoo and not a ubuntu-like one. if you are a normal user.. gentoo would be too hard to install and use, but ubuntu would be great(w/3D desktop eye candyz etc).. and so on

 

"knowledge belongs to people"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even if there is a common seed(the kernel),the GNU-linux development is highly decentralized. all is on the developers shoulders. each distro is different with different structure and has different targets in mind.

some examples: if you are a developer or an enthusiast, surely you'll go for a meta-distro as gentoo and not a ubuntu-like one. if you are a normal user.. gentoo would be too hard to install and use, but ubuntu would be great(w/3D desktop eye candyz etc).. and so on

 

And this is why Linux will never even become a 100 lb gorilla (Apple) or the 2,000 lb gorilla (Microsoft). There are too many chiefs running around in Linux Land and not enough standardizations. If all the Linux heads got together and designed one consistent *nix based OS, then it would stand a chance.

 

The way it is now, it seems more like a "I can't install Windows software on my Mac" kind of debacle, only on a lesser scale than the analogy I used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linux is what it is. Take it or leave it. I enjoy its diversity and its "hands on" method of computing. If a terminal window scares you than just stay away. :D

 

Exactly! Linux is not meant to imitate Windows or Mac. It is meant to be Linux:

 

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

 

Having said that there are distributions which work beautifully out of the box. Take a look at SUSE 10.1 remaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think the real problem with EFI is (surprise) Microsoft. Because Microsoft is apparently avoiding support for EFI with Vista, EFI will not replace BIOS in the mainstream for years.

 

Had Microsoft any integrity, instead of protecting its illegal monopoly from any potential change that EFI might represent, it would have fully endorsed EFI as being part of the Vista platform. Now we will have to wait to for the next major Windows cycle, perhaps another five to seven years (if not more), for Microsoft to drop BIOS.

 

Then of course, one has to wonder if Microsoft will try to supplant EFI with some propriety firmware system that it controls. That would be just the type of illegal monopolistic strategy we should expect from Microsoft.

 

I'm not sure of the point that you are tying to make, because Microsoft IS supporting EFI in the x64 version of Vista. I think this is a wise move. Why? Because the vast majority of systems with EFI-based motherboards are x64-capable. If they are going to add support for this new motherboard technology, why bother supporting it on the small percentage of EFI systems that are 32-bit? At some point they have to decide that certain features are only going to be available in certain versions of Windows, just as Apple decides that certain older Macs are going to be excluded from upgrading to Leopard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...