5 ms·

This seems to be what the IPad and Chrome OS are doing. Here's where linux fails on this front. Often it doesn't just work out of the box. I have to figure out

by jshen 16y ago

This seems to be what the IPad and Chrome OS are doing. Here's where linux fails on this front. Often it doesn't just work out of the box. I have to figure out how to install proprietary drivers, then I had to figure out how to configure it to get basic visual features like the drop shadow around the top most window. There is still an obnoxious flicker when I use desktop switching, the sound stops working after I do an update, etc. This all happened to me on the last two versions of ubuntu on a dell optiplex. So I went back to my mac.

dman 16y ago
Looks like redhat/novell/ubuntu should invest in multimedia codecs, sound architecture, wireless drivers and graphics driver support over all else.
- arianb 16y ago
  A lot of it comes from hardware manufacturers and other providers. MP3 support on Linux was terrible for a long time because of all the patent mess. Talk to companies like Broadcom or AMD / NVIDIA about making their components work much better with Linux, first. A lot of the issue is on their end, with not providing interfaces and drivers for distros to include. Canonical, Novell, and everyone else try their best to include what they can for their distros but it's hard when the companies making these computers don't help much.
  - dman 16y ago
    The part I dont understand is what prevents Redhat, Ubuntu etc to license multimedia codecs just like any other closed source company? Most significant streaming devices like the boxee, google tv etc run on top of a linux kernel, with netflix support and all other bells and whistles. Why dont linux companies push to license the same and make them available on the desktop?
    - jshen 16y ago
      Most linux companies aren't interested in the desktop. Redhat is focused on servers. Canonical is the only major linux distro/company that has the desktop as a primary focus.
  - arianb 16y ago
    AFAIK, Canonical tries to bundle Ubuntu with only free (read: open-source) software, to promote the idea that a totally open-source system can be a viable alternative to Windows / Mac. We all know that's a load of bollocks, though, as inertia keeps us using Flash Player and MP3 instead of HTML5 and OGG, for instance. Boxee, Google TV, and such are able to license Netflix and use their technology because it's much harder to hack them. Netflix has been fighting movie companies for years now to get full Linux support because Silverlight is the only player technology with the DRM to satisfy the studios that movies can't be copied from the stream, and Microsoft obviously has no intention of making it available on mainstream Linux distributions. I believe that Boxee, Google TV, and 360/PS3 all use other technologies, but that can be inherently less secure because it's harder to get inside of them. Also, they can afford to pay the monstrous fees to work with Netflix and develop a solution that will satisfy all of Netflix's backers. Licensing technology, especially with all of the patent stuff that's been going on lately, is an incredible undertaking and costs a lot of money, and many companies are unwilling to license to companies like Canonical because Linux is a huge administrative headache due to its openness and peoples' desire to have open systems. At least, that's how I understand all of this. I could be wrong.
    - dman 16y ago
      I agree, but Redhat is staring at a billion dollar annual revenue. Innovation follows platforms that people want to use in their own spare time. Redhat needs to make this happen in the long term or they risk ending up like Solaris where no one wants to use them after 5pm.
      - arianb 16y ago
        RedHat isn't interested in making a desktop OS, though. Their focus is on the enterprise market, with the Fedora team doing their best to make a desktop OS. It would be very difficult for RedHat or Novell to really make a push into the mainstream desktop market, and I imagine that justifying to their shareholders would be impossible. The desktop distro teams can't organize enough to get support from major companies, and the enterprise companies can't push into desktop because it's financial suicide to try and support normal desktop users who can barely use Windows.
  - jff 16y ago
    I've never understood the "MP3 support on Linux was terrible for a long time" thing--when was this long time? I'm pretty sure I was playing MP3 files under Redhat 6.2... how long ago was this?
    - arianb 16y ago
      My first experiences with MP3s on Linux was with RedHat 9 and Fedora Core 4 - Fedora 9. Yes, it was always possible to install the restricted codecs, but only recently were those instructions and processes made easier (and now, with recent distros, automatic). Maybe I was doing it wrong, but asking a user to install "restricted codecs" for something that Windows Media Player can do automatically isn't good for making users feel comfortable with your system.
- jshen 16y ago
  If their goal is for normal people to use it as a desktop. I don't think that is redhat's goal, I don't know about novell, but it is canonical's goal.
roadnottaken 16y ago
>This seems to be what the IPad and Chrome OS are doing. I agree. However it's MUCH easier to just work if there is only one hardware platform to develop for. This has been responsible for a huge share of Apple's reputation for "just working" and reliability since the beginning.

by jshen 16y ago

dman 16y ago

Looks like redhat/novell/ubuntu should invest in multimedia codecs, sound architecture, wireless drivers and graphics driver support over all else.

arianb 16y ago
A lot of it comes from hardware manufacturers and other providers. MP3 support on Linux was terrible for a long time because of all the patent mess. Talk to companies like Broadcom or AMD / NVIDIA about making their components work much better with Linux, first. A lot of the issue is on their end, with not providing interfaces and drivers for distros to include. Canonical, Novell, and everyone else try their best to include what they can for their distros but it's hard when the companies making these computers don't help much.
- dman 16y ago
  The part I dont understand is what prevents Redhat, Ubuntu etc to license multimedia codecs just like any other closed source company? Most significant streaming devices like the boxee, google tv etc run on top of a linux kernel, with netflix support and all other bells and whistles. Why dont linux companies push to license the same and make them available on the desktop?
  - jshen 16y ago
    Most linux companies aren't interested in the desktop. Redhat is focused on servers. Canonical is the only major linux distro/company that has the desktop as a primary focus.
- arianb 16y ago
  AFAIK, Canonical tries to bundle Ubuntu with only free (read: open-source) software, to promote the idea that a totally open-source system can be a viable alternative to Windows / Mac. We all know that's a load of bollocks, though, as inertia keeps us using Flash Player and MP3 instead of HTML5 and OGG, for instance. Boxee, Google TV, and such are able to license Netflix and use their technology because it's much harder to hack them. Netflix has been fighting movie companies for years now to get full Linux support because Silverlight is the only player technology with the DRM to satisfy the studios that movies can't be copied from the stream, and Microsoft obviously has no intention of making it available on mainstream Linux distributions. I believe that Boxee, Google TV, and 360/PS3 all use other technologies, but that can be inherently less secure because it's harder to get inside of them. Also, they can afford to pay the monstrous fees to work with Netflix and develop a solution that will satisfy all of Netflix's backers. Licensing technology, especially with all of the patent stuff that's been going on lately, is an incredible undertaking and costs a lot of money, and many companies are unwilling to license to companies like Canonical because Linux is a huge administrative headache due to its openness and peoples' desire to have open systems. At least, that's how I understand all of this. I could be wrong.
  - dman 16y ago
    I agree, but Redhat is staring at a billion dollar annual revenue. Innovation follows platforms that people want to use in their own spare time. Redhat needs to make this happen in the long term or they risk ending up like Solaris where no one wants to use them after 5pm.
    - arianb 16y ago
      RedHat isn't interested in making a desktop OS, though. Their focus is on the enterprise market, with the Fedora team doing their best to make a desktop OS. It would be very difficult for RedHat or Novell to really make a push into the mainstream desktop market, and I imagine that justifying to their shareholders would be impossible. The desktop distro teams can't organize enough to get support from major companies, and the enterprise companies can't push into desktop because it's financial suicide to try and support normal desktop users who can barely use Windows.
- jff 16y ago
  I've never understood the "MP3 support on Linux was terrible for a long time" thing--when was this long time? I'm pretty sure I was playing MP3 files under Redhat 6.2... how long ago was this?
  - arianb 16y ago
    My first experiences with MP3s on Linux was with RedHat 9 and Fedora Core 4 - Fedora 9. Yes, it was always possible to install the restricted codecs, but only recently were those instructions and processes made easier (and now, with recent distros, automatic). Maybe I was doing it wrong, but asking a user to install "restricted codecs" for something that Windows Media Player can do automatically isn't good for making users feel comfortable with your system.
jshen 16y ago
If their goal is for normal people to use it as a desktop. I don't think that is redhat's goal, I don't know about novell, but it is canonical's goal.

roadnottaken 16y ago

>This seems to be what the IPad and Chrome OS are doing. I agree. However it's MUCH easier to just work if there is only one hardware platform to develop for. This has been responsible for a huge share of Apple's reputation for "just working" and reliability since the beginning.