Wintel Fragments in Panic

One of the knocks the non-free software movement makes against GNU/Linux and FLOSS is that the effort is fragmented. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. M$ has umpteen versions of its OS. Intel to announce 40 new server processors in 1H12. Multiply that out and you have a fragmented OS/CPU market if there ever was one. Purchasers will be lusting after GNU/Linux on ARM just to make acquisition easier. With the fragmentation in Wintel it is impossible to calculate price/performance to make rational purchasing decisions. That’s not efficient and it certainly is not what the buyers seek. It’s all about panic, fear that GNU/Linux on ARM or AMD or something will sneak up the middle and take some share in some niche.

Does Wintel really believe the world wants to agonize for years over what choice of OS and CPU and motherboard to acquire? I can remember the effort of choosing AMD v Intel and what clockspeed and how many cores in the days of single/dual core. Then there was 32/64bitness.

No doubt some salesmen will claim this snow-job will confuse buyers into buying more expensive products but it clearly is inefficient to have to create, advertise, sell and buy so many choices just to get the job done. We saw M$ flatten its growth when umpteen licensing models collided with umpteen version of that other OS and now Intel is doing the same. Good luck to them both. I think this will cause more to step off the Wintel treadmill sooner rather than later.

It’s fear that causes a soldier to waste ammunition firing full-auto into the night. Spray and pray is rarely effective except in helping the enemy zero in accurately and to assess the level of anxiety. What is Wintel fearing and where are they vulnerable? It looks like price/performance to me is their big weakness. They want to make it impossible to calculate price/performance ratios. No one can afford to buy all this stuff to try it out. No one wants to do that. It’s far better to use GNU/Linux instead. I recommend Debian GNU/Linux. It will work for you on any hardware giving the best bang for the dollar.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Wintel Fragments in Panic

  1. oldman says:

    “They replaced their crap with GNU/Linux and ORACLE.”

    (emphasis by capitalization mine)

    I assume that you realize that you made my point with this one.

  2. oldman wrote, “I will bet good money that if you look carefully at most business past a certain size, you discover that when push comes to shove commercial software is the norm for any IT that is business critical. Plenty of people use MySQL for data whose loss will not be a tragedy. For data that counts, they use oracle.”

    Gee, Amazon, FaceBook, RackSpace, NASA, US DOD,… all have size and the mission is critical to them. Whatever do you mean, oldman? Perhaps you believe that no one ever gets fired for buying from M$ or Oracle but it does happen.

    The London Stock Exchange did fire M$’s ass out of there after it messed up seriously. They replaced their crap with GNU/Linux and Oracle.

    Vonage migrated from Oracle to PostgreSQL. They cut costs by 90% and got better support.

  3. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    “That many businesses choose the most expensive technology to get the job done is not proof that FLOSS cannot do the job.

    Of course it isn’t. But leaving aside the “most expensive” stuff, which I’m sure would glide through the average accountancy department without demure, the question here is:

    Why are these morons not buying a FLOSS equivalent that does the job?

    Are they insane? Can they not see the bottom line.

    These are deep and interesting thoughts.

  4. Dr Loser says:

    @Koz:

    “Drop FLOSS and your desktop grinds to a halt.”

    See, here’s the thing.

    I make personal choices (which don’t happen to involve composing music, but whatever).

    I make those personal choices, based upon what works at my level. FLOSS doesn’t work at my level.

    It may surprise you, but I have no religious insistence on my routers and my bridges and my ISPs running on MiracleMagicX.

    I genuinely do not care.

    If it doesn’t work, I’ll go on to the next and better service.

    Does this sound strange to you?

  5. oldman says:

    “In software this is not true. ”

    Thats not my point Pog. Mr. K. made a statement that was pointing out was in error.

    “In fact, many businesses use FLOSS for almost everything.”

    I will bet good money that if you look carefully at most business past a certain size, you discover that when push comes to shove commercial software is the norm for any IT that is business critical. Plenty of people use MySQL for data whose loss will not be a tragedy. For data that counts, they use oracle.

    “If you look at a product such as Oracle’s database, you can see how Ellison made a good product seem essential by gradually locking businesses in. Now the businesses are in a hole and it costs money to dig their way out.”

    When I look at a product like oracle, I see an enterprise grade product that scales to enterprise class problems. I see a database that is well supported and well known by a large community. I see a database with a company behind it. I also see our dba regularly move university data between oracle and other systems without issue. I can say this because we have over 100 oracle databases ranging as large as 6Tb. They form the foundation all of our ERP applications.

    IMHO one of the things that you need to keep in mind is that there are classes of IT problems that require more than just free code and for which you definition of “lock-in” is simply not relevant.

  6. oldman wrote, “you CANT do with without the proprietary world”.

    In software this is not true. That many businesses choose the most expensive technology to get the job done is not proof that FLOSS cannot do the job. In fact, many businesses use FLOSS for almost everything. If you look at a product such as Oracle’s database, you can see how Ellison made a good product seem essential by gradually locking businesses in. Now the businesses are in a hole and it costs money to dig their way out.

  7. oldman says:

    I just reread this gem of ignorance.

    “You can do without the proprietary world but you can’t do without FLOSS and it’s been that way for some time now”

    Actually sir, you CANT do with without the proprietary world. It powers the core of the internet itself(Cisco, Juniper) Not to mention any businesses (Oracle, Peoplesoft, SAP) and quite a few closed source proprietary programs too numerous to mention that are under the covers.

  8. oldman says:

    “You can do what you can do with your proprietary software but there are some things you can’t do without FLOSS. That’s the difference between the proprietary world and the FLOSS world. You can do without the proprietary world but you can’t do without FLOSS and it’s been that way for some time now.”

    Personally I don’t give a crap what YOU use, I was expecting you to look and tell me what in FOSS would replace it.

    You will note that even oiaohm who had the stones to answer me had to admit that FOSS was not enough.

    So in the end you REMAIN a coward and an ignorant one to boot. All you can keep doing is repeating your stupid mantra.

    Ok Dipstick Please inform me how the absence of the internet and FOSS makes it impossible for me to compose music.

    I await your answer.

  9. Kozmcrae says:

    “Of course you little coward, had you bothered to take up my challenge,”

    What challenge? You have no challenge @ldman. You have nothing I want. I have my music making software too. It does everything I want/need and more, far more. If I had the chops and wanted to go professional, I could do that too with Linux. Same goes for other interests as well.

    You can do what you can do with your proprietary software but there are some things you can’t do without FLOSS. That’s the difference between the proprietary world and the FLOSS world. You can do without the proprietary world but you can’t do without FLOSS and it’s been that way for some time now.

    Now put your hands over your ears tightly and loudly proclaim, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

    Good, now there’s no need for you to reply to this post.

  10. oldman says:

    Mr. oiaohm.

    All of this is fine and dandy, but NONE of it amounts to real commercial support for Linux. The fact remains that you are taking a package an using it in an unsupported manner. That may be fine for you, but it is not fine for the average musician. The fact remains that if one has working commercial supported solutions under windows or OS X there is zero reason to use the IMHO half a$$ed pile of junk that exists for free.

    For my part, I simply do not trust communally made and supported software when it comes to my desktop usage and especially my music making.

    IN the end that is IMHO the downfall of FOSS. – no throat to choke( and third party support doesnt count IMHO). No business behind the product. just a huge number of volunteers who may or may not get things right.

    You can keep it.

  11. oiaohm says:

    oldman what is SFZ 1.0 and SFZ 2.0.

    First 2 letters is SoundFont. Z is referring to compression.

    Yes SFZ is the latest versions of SoundFont.

    http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/fluidsynth/wiki/Future

    The format inside SFZ is now out there. The Linux natives for soundfont are updating there engines.

    Aria in fact has extensions to the soundfont system. Its not SFZ 1.0 or SFZ 2.0 it is in fact SFZ ~2.0+ Aria extras yes Aria does not do some opcodes of standard SFZ 2.0 either. Documents of those extras has been released.

    By the time it is done Aria will not be required at all. Linux will have two engines fluidsynth and Linuxsampler that will play SFZ. Difference is that it that both will have all the extensions of all the related engines that play SFZ files. Compared to the horrid miss match of engines on Windows we have for playing SFZ.

    Also worse nightmare http://www.linuxsampler.org/sfz/ Files for Linuxsampler don’t play in aria very well at all. Yes that custom opcode crap of sfz is a true pain in but. Yes some of the free sfz files you would have got at some point could have been sounding Shockley bad and it would be using the wrong engine to play them lacking the linuxsampler opcodes.

    Yes there are some Linuxsampler only sfz files out there.

    Basically sfz mess is a good reason moving to use a common open-source engine. In the hope that we get something that when you see a sfz file you can just run the stuff instead of having to go does it own to this or that.

    If you notice items like pan were not clearly defined in the standard. Great lovely we have a format we are depending that is in need of a lot better documentation.

    “Really? Do you believe that any of the professional gread sample libraries would never have been created “for free”. I think you now better sir.”

    Engine that can run all the professional grade sample libraries without turning them at randomly into a dogs breakfast I see existing for free.

    The professional grade sample libraries I always suspect those will have to be paid for.

    Its just a simple fact of the issue common fileformat without common engine used by everyone equals issues.

    There is sanity oldman somethings it pays to be FOSS. Play back engines of sound fonts is one of those things that should be so we don’t have hell.

    Yes if you play the SFZ files you like with Cakewalk SFZ who is the inventor of SFZ they don’t work right.

    So your system is land-mined. I want a system where I can look at the file extension and know what engine I have to send into so I can use it.

    Serous-ally SFZ is how html down right use to look before conformance testing.

    Vienna Instruments will give instructions to convert there sample sets to many different native linux play systems. Funny enough some there stuff is Gigastudio native that is exactly what Linuxsampler was designed to play in the first place.

    WestWest link please. I know a few that could be that name one of them is linux internal. They produce some great samples.

  12. oldman says:

    “Drop FLOSS and your desktop grinds to a halt. You could still work locally but communication would be non existent. ”

    My communication on the internet does not effect my musicmaking. It does not effect my analysis of data once it is on my station.

    “You refuse to acknowledge the contribution of FLOSS to your work and productivity. ”

    And you Mr. K refuse to accept delivery or acknowledge that The tools that I am talking about function independently of the internet. I can go for long periods of time before I have to jack in and transmit.

    Of course you little coward, had you bothered to take up my challenge, you might begin to get the point I have been trying to make.

    So how about cleaning the crap out of your ears and listening, moron.

  13. Kozmcrae says:

    “Grow up buddy. these are just tools and plumbing. the tools that I am talking about are on my desktop”

    Drop FLOSS and your desktop grinds to a halt. You could still work locally but communication would be non existent. All your references to the Internet are ancient history. You refuse to acknowledge the contribution of FLOSS to your work and productivity. (In your own words) You are a dipstick of the first order sir.

  14. oldman says:

    “Sorry you use it lot more often than you think. ariaengine is a sound font processing engine.”

    The fact that Aria can also handle soundfont format is irrelevant. I have long since gotten beyond soundfonts in general because in the end the garritan samples are better. and the WestWest and VSL are better still.

    “So yes the garritan stuff will be support by Linux naively and that is the simple reality of it. ”

    Where Sir. I’ve just been through the site for garritan, makemusic and area and I find zero indication of linux support. I DO however find that the area engine uses the universal sample fromat SFZ 1.0 and SFZ 2.0. That is however a far cry from supporting linux.

    THis having been said I will accept correction if you can provide the appropriate references.

    “Oldman you closed source logic does not match up to the company.”

    Really? Do you believe that any of the professional gread sample libraries would never have been created “for free”. I think you now better sir.

    That is ans has always been my point. Closed source commercial always wins at this level of sophistication because it it requires a substantial effort and sometimes money for licensing (do you think that the professional musicians who create the sample raw material work for nothing?).

    Not everyone believes in the FOSS commune.

    Look lets cut to the chase. Neither of us is going to change their tools, and if the best that you can do in answering my points is to say that it is “getting better” Then my point stands.

  15. oldman says:

    “Not in the least. I am simply giving back in kind what you give to FLOSS in return for utilities, applications and paradigms it gives you, that you put to productive use every day. That is, a kick in the teeth for all that goodwill. ”

    Grow up buddy. these are just tools and plumbing. the tools that I am talking about are on my desktop

    “That is if you could even realize how much of it you actually use. I don’t think you can. I know you couldn’t because you could not possibly have so much contempt for it if you knew how much you depended on it. Your mind could not hold those two concepts together.”

    Look dipstick I’m not stupid. I’ve been using the internet from the mid 1980’s. I was on the internet in the early 90’s using windows 3.1 packet drivers and the Trumpet winsock TCP/IP stack. I was surfing with NCSA Mosaic ( the first graphical Web browser) and doing FTP’s direct from home via PPP enabled dialup. I have used or helped other people use every major internet based technology from that time to the present. It pays my bills.

    What you seem not to be able to wrap YOUR brain around is that there is more to computing that web browsing and Email. I have a raft of local applications both personal and professional that I use day in and day out. These tools and applications run LOCALLY. These tools and applications access data stored on my LOCAL disk. They function quite nicely without internet connectivity. And THEY are the principal component of my personal productivity.

    They are also NOT FOSS.

    My so called contempt for FOSS is not with the applications of it but is for those who insist that the FOSS way is the only way and who insist that either I have the equivalent tools now and I just have to learn a “different way of doing things” or (like oiaohm) that if I wait long enough I will get the exact equivalent of those tools that I have not for “free”.

    And then there is the notion that I HAVE to share my creative efforts “for the good of all”.

    That is where you hear my contempt.

    Now how about an answer to my challenge, Mr. K?

  16. Kozmcrae says:

    “I do believe that you are attempting to censor me by theatening verbal abuse.”

    Not in the least. I am simply giving back in kind what you give to FLOSS in return for utilities, applications and paradigms it gives you, that you put to productive use every day. That is, a kick in the teeth for all that goodwill.

    Who or what else do you abuse so brazenly? How could FLOSS hurt you when it’s so connected to your productivity? Think about how productive you would be without any free or open source software at all. That is if you could even realize how much of it you actually use. I don’t think you can. I know you couldn’t because you could not possibly have so much contempt for it if you knew how much you depended on it. Your mind could not hold those two concepts together.

    So you can expect as much abuse from me as you heap upon FLOSS. If you don’t like it, try something different.

  17. oiaohm says:

    oldman you are making a mistake. I am not a gear head. Different is my system is used in live performances restore time is critical. Intermission 15 mins. You might be able to tolerate 2 hours+ that is because you are not doing live work.

    “Time making sure that it all works, and fixing what doesnt.”

    That is why I pay for a commercial package of Linux based for audio. That is already done for me oldman.

    Pen and paper is not a option for me oldman. I don’t have the physical dexterity in my hands to use that option.

    garritan and Kontakt does provide technical support to Linux users by the way.

    “That nice but I am using all 64 bit versions of the aria engine”. Funny enough there is no gain. Other than being heaver.

    Also –Now the makemusic is acquiring garritan, we shall see about that.–

    Libraries in the back end of finale that you love by makemusic are open source oldman. Really makemusic is more Linux friendly than garritan was. The take over is what got linuxsampler.org access to garritan format information.

    So as long as the open source guys release on windows and OS X as well as linux makemusic will assist.

    Makemusic does not care where there tech comes from only that it good oldman. So yes the garritan stuff will be support by Linux naively and that is the simple reality of it. Yes and it thanks to the company change that you were thinking would reduce it.

    Means to sell garritan stuff to more markets without any development cost why the heck not.

    Oldman you closed source logic does not match up to the company.

    “Unfortunately I havent used soundfont based stuff in years” That is what garritan stuff is. Customized version. Sorry you use it lot more often than you think. ariaengine is a sound font processing engine.

  18. oldman says:

    “You can look forward to more abuse from me. I’ll show you all the respect you do for what FLOSS has given you.”

    Mr. K:

    I do believe that you are attempting to censor me by theatening verbal abuse. I find this particularly humerous since in the end you are not the owner of this site Robert Pogson is and he has not chosen to cut me off.

    If the owner of this site allows me to post here, Who do you think you are to try and shut me up? And do you really think that verbal abuse is going to do anything more than make you look like a stupid little fanboy?

    Frankly if I’m going to be insulted I’ll iake someone like oiaohm. At least he show intelligence in his riposts to my positions.

    You on the other hand seem to think that if you just call me names it is going to change something
    From your reference I assume I am going to be “shown” the wonders of MySQL, Apache, and any other. please save your breath. I have been using it all, (though I have always preferred postgre to mysql) far longer that you have. I have been through more change in my career that you will ever know. And I am still changing professionally.

    I actually do respect – supporting it pays the bills.

    What I do not respect are people like you wo make statements like

    “FLOSS wins because it wins and you do to ”

    and then when I explain that this “gift” doesnt do what I need it to do and while closed source commercial software does, I get told that I am an “old fool” who is “afraid of change”

    bushwah.

    After years of mucking around in FOSS and commercial software, I have a combination of tools that work for me. They happen to be closed source commercial softwarn about the e, and nothing you say is going to change that fact.

    So instead of talking about My SQL, how about responding to my little challenge.

  19. Kozmcrae says:

    “What gift? the core of the internet was paid for with my tax dollars. The geeks of the FOSS commune did nothing but guild the lilly IMHO.”

    You are a total ass @ldman. Your “tax dollars” gave us nothing of what we enjoy today. The hard work of the FLOSS community gave us the Internet as we know it and the WWW.

    You think your “tax dollars” have some kind of priority over the work of FLOSS? Your “tax dollars” did not innovate a damn thing. The minds and hard work of the community did. It’s a gift to all of us but you show nothing but contempt for it. That makes you a Royal Ass, a butt plug of the first order. You deserve no respect as far as I’m concerned.

    If you cannot recognize the gift of the Internet you could at least withhold judgment, but you don’t. You belittle the work of FLOSS and refuse to recognize its accomplishment.

    You can look forward to more abuse from me. I’ll show you all the respect you do for what FLOSS has given you.

    Now, that takes care of the Internet. Let’s move on to the some of the pieces. We’ll start with MySql….

  20. oldman says:

    “But the day will come that all the garritan stuff works native.”

    Now the makemusic is acquiring garritan, we shall see about that.

  21. oldman says:

    “You are missing that mine setup is not only composing. Mine is live performance control as well.”

    OK fine, mine isnt. and since this is about my point, that point is irrelevant to me.

    “ariaengine win32 vst funny enough is quicker to install into my system than it to install into windows because it preinstalled in the provided image.”

    That nice but I am using all 64 bit versions of the aria engine.

    Funny enough have you not considered even with all the dicking around as you say. I have raced a person to production who had the same software you like using oldman. Guess who was installed first and able to produce. Even allowing for linking to windows host server for Soundsonline.

    Thats nice but the fact that you can pre-configure a system to maximum load speed is irrelevant to my use case .besides , I can and have done the same with windows when I chose to take the time. I no longer bother such esoterica like this on my personal equipment. If I truly had a need to support RTO of 15 min for my portable. It would cheaper and more supportable for me to just purchase a second system to work on while the system is rebuilding itself – which I have.

    ” Really its you oldman who will spend more time dicking around waiting for the windows software installers to install the software so you can use it.”

    Applying registration to finale requires an internet connection within 30 days to activate if that connection is present, activation take less than 2 minutes. the Worst case scenario for applying activation to aria requires dragging and dropping of a special license token onto the aria player while it is open. VSL requires plunnging in the dongle. To me this is hardly a tragedy time wise.

    “Yes the only thing I have todo oldman is copy the soundfonts in. Funny enough I could even avoid that.”

    Unfortunately I havent used soundfont based stuff in years – I work will full samplers. the libraries that I am loading are in the 20+Gb range.I Do this from USB 3.0 capable hard disks

    “So how am I messing around???? Simple fact I am not.”

    Maybe not now that you have reduced it to practice you aren’t, but think about every extra step that was needed in the process that you described. There is time spent setting up the install verbiage. Time making sure that it all works, and fixing what doesnt. Then there is the time that you will spend maintaining it and we all know that there will be time spend doing that.

    As far as I am concerned, you are doing the equivalent killing a fly wth a nuclear bomb installation wise.

    “Really oldman is yours that ready? Linux wins hands down for portables.”

    But as far as I am concerned, it loses for everything else that I am concerned about. This would include full vendor support of the packages that I have purchased. And I dont give a crap about how “robust” your workarounds are, they are, as far as I know, still unsupported by the vendor and I will not even consider them.

    “Get this I don’t believe in wasting multi hours getting a system ready to produce because by then I could have forgotten the idea I had.”

    The installation of windows 7 ultimate with slipstreamed SP1 (my one consession to techno geekery) is about 30 minutes on my portable. the installation of all packages including 20+Gb of samples is ca 2hours. This is fine with me.

    As far as the possibility of losing ideas because there is no computer available this is taken care of by resorting to the oldest backup of all…

    Pen and paper.

    You see, working without a keyboard while composing has its advantages.

    “Basically I plunk down cash and if I cannot start doing some music producing in under 15 mins I am not happy. Clean install of windows takes longer than I tolerate.”

    And that is fine for you, but in the end the ability to reload a system quickly from failure is simply not a major feature to me. More to my original point, I suspect that it will be a non feature of most of the non gear head musicians that I know.

  22. oiaohm says:

    oldman Really it not that much messing around.

    You are missing that mine setup is not only composing. Mine is live performance control as well.

    ariaengine win32 vst funny enough is quicker to install into my system than it to install into windows because it preinstalled in the provided image.

    garritan in fact only plays the best with the ariaengine.

    Kontakt is also something I had to install for audio from other sources as well. oldman.

    Funny enough have you not considered even with all the dicking around as you say. I have raced a person to production who had the same software you like using oldman. Guess who was installed first and able to produce. Even allowing for linking to windows host server for Soundsonline.

    The advantage of starting with a preconfigure OS for about 90 percent+ of my needs. Including 500+ VST files installed off the start line readly to go. Plus ones like ariaengine that are trials that you just have to apply registration to. Really its you oldman who will spend more time dicking around waiting for the windows software installers to install the software so you can use it.

    Yes Kontakt the player was installed off the start line as well.

    Yes the only thing I have todo oldman is copy the soundfonts in. Funny enough I could even avoid that.

    Plug preprovided boot usb key into computer plug harddrive with all my soundfonts and jackaudio templates boot apply one registration key and go. Oldman.

    So how am I messing around???? Simple fact I am not.

    Only messing around is for Soundsonline setup and if I really feel like perfection VSL to use remote.

    Same configuration will control both VSL and Soundsonline to feedback into my portable.

    Remember while I am waiting for those to install I already have a production ready system in my hands.

    Also once I have the system customized. I can duplicate my portable system to another computer exactly and it will work oldman. So yes shock horror my laptop gets broken. I have a backup image with my go down to store buy laptop dump image on ready to rock.

    Really oldman is yours that ready? Linux wins hands down for portables.

    Get this I don’t believe in wasting multi hours getting a system ready to produce because by then I could have forgotten the idea I had.

    Maybe the two step of rosegarden and musescore has an advantage. Rosegarden file contains no images/pictures. Handy when you want to custom logo stuff for a event. You know exactly what files are image less because they are different file extensions.

    Basically I plunk down cash and if I cannot start doing some music producing in under 15 mins I am not happy. Clean install of windows takes longer than I tolerate.

  23. oldman says:

    “Basically oldman you had close to the full set of the core. finale can be taste some people are happy.”

    Sorry but in the end almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and tactical nukes. Besides, I have Zero interest in going through all the gyrations that you go through. I just plunk down my cash and get down to music making without what I view as compromises.

    I find it fascinating that you seem not to even notics how much d-cking around that you do to get to the same place that I got to by paying for half a dozen packages, loading them up and getting down to composing.

    Even if you believe it is worth it, do you really think that any musician who is not a gear head is going to want to go thought this crap?

    I dont.

  24. oldman wrote, “the core of the internet was paid for with my tax dollars.”

    Very little of current Internet structure was paid for by any tax dollars. DARPA etc. were a long time ago. Most of the Internet runs on FLOSS and a hierarchy of network/communication providers. Everyone with an Internet connection pays for it. Everyone with a domain name pays for it. Government does own some of that for their own use.

  25. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    http://sso.mattiaswestlund.net/ You are missing this one. Handy when you need light and are just doing the basic compose. The rest you have in your collection have a bad habit of being cpu consuming. Yes I don’t say they will not produce a better final result but when it comes down to compose or sound perfect at times compose wins.

    garritan you point to I use ariaengine win32 in the Linux vst wrapper to use any of them. If you are game you can try linuxsampler.org that is currently working on adding garritan support with garritan themselves. That I am not using it should give you a hint its not ready yet. But the day will come that all the garritan stuff works native.

    linuxsampler.org has some others as well that are for the Gigasampler format. Yes I know minorally wrong to have to install a program called Linuxsampler on windows to get access to stuff.

    vsl sound files can be got in Kontakt(.nki) format. Kontakt runs in Linux wine vst wrapper without issue.

    Soundsonline is one of the items at this stage there is no effective way to run it under Linux. Slaves very well. Midi instructions from Linux box to windows box with audio back by SPDIF

    Mostly because the bugger dies because it usb I am legal key cannot be found at all under wine. For that reason I don’t like traveling soundsonline with me.

    Basically oldman you had close to the full set of the core. finale can be taste some people are happy.

    linuxsampler.org is particular handy if you wish to add some of you own specials. Until when you are on windows you find that the editor is not there. Yes there is a editor for it stuff on Linux as part of it. So remember the windows version is the cut back version.

    So I have access to most of what you have on cheaper configuration oldman. Final results really not much different. Price my portable gets damaged not much.

    The effects and alterations those programs do I prefer the synthesizer emulations to perform those jobs. Jackaudio is giving me the network functionality of vsl top product but with more applications integrated in and without the platform lock.

    Also those selection I am using yes do produce a slightly lower grade result. But I don’t need a huge system to lift them either. This is the problem mine is a multi role little unit. I guess yours looks like a tank oldman.

    There is a good enough point. Thing is composed files on mine can connected to tank like yours for final processing. It does annoy you when you have a person listen to the two tracks and they end up linking the cheaper done one. Its like why in hell did I bother processing that.

    oldman nothing in your collection looked to be design for live performance assistance. Basically 100 dollars gets me a decent rounder lacking sound fonts. That can run from battery for a decent amount of time. Perfection equals 100 percent flat battery very quickly.

    At least you are using something decent. finale is quite a nice program same with the VSL stuff other than the price tag. I do use rosegarden or MuseScore todo the job of finale note or sometimes you will do so much in rosegarden then load in MuseScore to finish off. Effects side is jackaudio and it stack of plugins. VSL at least has some computer to computer. Oldman you do have a decent combination. At least you are not one of those people who think cubase is good. If you cannot join computer to computer once you effects get really heavy you are screwed. There is only so much computer power you can fit in a box.

    I do love using the old synth emulatiors they do love eating the cpu time something bad.

  26. oldman says:

    “I return the respect they show towards the gift of FLOSS.”

    What gift? the core of the internet was paid for with my tax dollars. The geeks of the FOSS commune did nothing but guild the lilly IMHO.

    Their gift of an office suite was created by a commercial company. That gift is INCAPABLE of doing what I do now with Excel. And I wont even dignify that trash that would be gifted to me as a substitute for the software that I use to compose music.

    BTW – have you made any progress on my little challenge, Mr. K.

  27. I haven’t censored anyone lately except one IP address. Perhaps a spammer used your IP address.

    Nope. I found two of your comments in the trash put there automatically by Akismet. I think the unusual number of links to commerce tipped it over the fence. Sorry. I undid those two. They are almost identical. I approved both.

  28. oiaohm says:

    Something I did not mention that is critical. Is that distribution packages contain a tag saying what version of that distribution and the exact distrobution they were built for.

    So yes over night any Linux distribution that decide to put the the end to the dependency hell issue by auto placing applications in chroot for the distribution they own to. So ending the dependency hell with one stroke.

    Of course at a huge cost in disc space and a huge cost in memory usage. The exact solution MS implemented in Windows 7 basically.

    In fact this auto placement in chroot does become simpler as systemd gets rolled out.

    Be very careful what you ask for. If you want windows way you could request distributions grant exactly that. There is nothing from software tech in Linux preventing it. Its only thing is getting a will of a distribution to implement it.

    In fact auto chroot would allow binaries at a max back to 1995 to run.

  29. oldman says:

    Pog:

    Is there a particular reason that you are censoring me?

  30. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    “I don’t expect it to work very often, at least over a period of six years, because during that period there isn’t a single distro I can think of that is LSB-compliant.”

    This is the annoy part Most distributions are fully LSB-compliant for using LSB packages from current version back to verison 1.0. That they provide LSB packages is insanely rare. Also very annoying. When you know if they did the backwards compatibility issues would be very simple to deal with.

    So as long as you buy applications that are LSB you are pretty right. They will very rarely fail on you. Most of the ones that fail are in fact not LSB packages but like some maker being stupid and releasing like ubuntu packages only. Basically everything good quality closed source for Linux that you are paying for like Oracle and closed source mysql graphical tools are LSB applications and you have no trouble running old ones.

    http://linuxtesting.org/results/testsuite This item is something you should use to choose a Linux Distribution. If it will not work third party programs most likely will not work so you don’t want it.

    apt-get one of those surprising things. There is bugger all to it. apt-get is not used on all distributions. It is a way to download packages. Installing packages falls to rpm dpkg….

    Default screen debian ubuntu…(basically all distributions in existence) after a clean install will be basically all distribution line only packaging. Yes there is no reason for this other attempting to be incompatible and resource wasting pricks.

    LSB standards is able to cover about 80 to 90 percent of all applications. Because 80 to 90 percent of all applications don’t use anything not defined in LSB standards that would prevent LSB packaging.

    People don’t pick distributions because they provide LSB packages so distributions don’t provide them.

    So if for some reason you need to build a package from source you would be better off follow the LSB way that way you will not have to rebuild it when or if you change distribution.

    Is it possible to convert from distribution package to something close to what a LSB package is. Yes thank god. That is what Oinstall pkg2zero does. Of course a wrapper that converted distribution packages to LSB packages would be better. Technically possible just no one has done it. Again the number of people coming to run old packages that are not LSB is less common.

    The binary incompatibility issue most of the time is nothing more than dependance hell caused by Distributions. Worst part is following standards mostly avoidable dependency hell.

    What is the key difference between a LSB application and standard distribution application. The dynamic loader and where LSB application will be installed.

    LSB application installs /opt/-application-/

    With the loader when looking for .so files looking in /opt/-application/lib

    Also shocking is most Linux applications are path relocatable if they are built that way. http://www.manpagez.com/info/relocatable/ that all LSB applications are. This would be a good step forward if was made mandatory.

    Wine is a good example of hell.

    Wine is the worst program to try to run old in the Linux world. There is no other application worse. It is dependent on almost everything that it works perfectly. You are dealing with a program that its total dependency tree of parts is over 1000 parts. Yes any one missing and it will not work right.

    If you just simply downloaded the deb/rpm/whenever distrobution package extracted it into a directory somewhere and run it from there it would in fact work as long as all it dependencies were installed if it had been left on build defaults not overridden by distribution from being relocatable. If it had not due to the fact us working with wine know that use at times will need more than one version. We kinda made sure wine support a set of environmental keys that can override what ever the distribution builder did so still allowing you to run it from where ever you like. Wine developers should not have to code this functionality in if all packages were built relocatable.

    This is not uncommon. Upstream is fighting with downstream. Upstream of distrobutions wants what you want Dr Loser. Problem is we have distributions between you and us.

    To run old wine it is simpler at times just to install a chroot by the time you have finished adding the dependency that would have been quicker. I have also done a chroot install when users have been complaining of some strange error on there distribution with the same verison of wine I cannot see on mine. Yes chroot install different distribution into a directory use the same Linux kernel and X11 server and audio server.

    I guess you are thinking of Linuxconf the tool that died. It died for many reasons. Some being that configuration options moved on. Administrator tools have to remain up to date even under windows some third party administrator tools die with service packs applied.

    What you can take away from this is that Linux is really binary compatible. You can run any application from distribution on any other distribution if you install enough files of that distribution from 1999 on. Just distributions go out of there way to make it a complete misery at every chance they get.

    Yes Dr Loser running into the dependency hell not knowing what it is you can get the incorrect idea that there is some form of not fixable binary compatibility issue. When its just distrobutions being assholes.

    Once you know the methods you don’t get caught out.
    Rules are as follows.
    1) Build from source follow LSB standard. That way you will not have to be redoing this.
    2) Do not fear using third party packaging of 0install to fix the evil.
    3) Do not fear chroot. Its can be your best option.
    4) Don’t stupidly think that you are going to bend the distribution against it will.

    Number 4 is why people get hurt. You think I will just add back in this library and this library and it will work. Forgetting something critical. /usr/lib /lib….. Are shared between the distribution applications. So people taint the distribution so the distribution turns on them and attempts to kill the basically.

    If you have to add libraries that distributions does not have anymore. It time for chroot or 0install or wrappers bending the dynamic loader. This is avoiding the distrobutions will to have its own libraries for it own applications. So you don’t send the system to hell. Also the LSB binaries are basically just provided with a nicely prebent loader so making it simple to add libraries to keep application working as required.

    Its wrong methods used is why people think Linux has a binary compatibility issue. Its not binary compatibility issues. Its that to address dependency issues you must do it particular ways. Anything outside that you will upset things with long term effect leading to the distribution showing more bugs than it should be.

    It just like users going nuts in Windows deleting every font they don’t use. Down the track they learn this is a very stupid thing todo.

    Basically new Linux error equal to windows user deleting fonts is trying to install old applications by incorrect methods. So thinking they don’t work and that Linux is binary incompatible with anything not provided by the distribution.

    Reality and belief are two different things. apt-get from to-days distribution will run on any distribution into the future until cpu changes if you are using the correct methods.

    chroot is a historic unix solution to binary dependency compatibility issue. In a few years time it will get even simpler. Change over DR2 and Kernel base memory management of video cards will allow old X11 servers to be run contained.

    Please beware Windows 7 contains a XP virtual machine to run old applications. Linux is not the only beast having problem with dependency hell. Linux at least got the method stabilized in 2000 how to handle it. So strip the XP virtual machine out of windows 7 and Windows 7 cannot run a lot applications from 5 years on the current day kernel that windows 7 has. Linux goes back 10 years+ with current day kernel for what it will run.

    When you start talking true binary compatibility without assistance Linux beats windows.

    Really I do wonder how the Windows App store will play out over the generations. If it will turn into the same nightmare Linux repo systems are.

    oldman is partly right setting up a chroot to provide like a XP virtual machine on Linux distributions in the same way Windows 7 is should be made simpler. So solving problem. User then can install what ever they like. Hang on I am now eating ram like it going out of fashion.

    Everything has a price. Out the box support old binaries equals higher ram usage.

    This is the big problem. Lot of fault that Linux is held up for Windows has as well. Just users are not aware how they are paying for it. Yes Windows 7 larger ram requirement to partly to deal with running old XP and before applications.

    Microsoft is planing to make visualization more at the core of Windows to avoid dependency hell.

    Linux and Windows both fail to the same problem in two different ways. Windows is failing to it silent in background. Solutions are exactly the same. One you know that you have forced a solution one you don’t.

  31. Kozmcrae says:

    “I see ww’re back to the personal insults that you accuse everybody else of but would never stoop to, yourself.”

    I return the respect they show towards the gift of FLOSS.

    I trust you can read beyond the respect I return towards my foils.

  32. oldman says:

    “It means you are an old fool who is too lazy to think, too arrogant to change and too committed to an outmoded paradigm. ”

    Not base as insults go Mr. K. – its actually almost elegant.

    Sicne you are the expert on FOSS, heres a little challenge:

    take a look at the programs described on the following sites

    http://www.finalemusic.com/default.aspx

    and

    http://www.garritan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154&Itemid=54

    and

    http://www.garritan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=159

    and

    http://www.soundsonline.com/Symphonic-Choirs

    In addition, you may want to take a look at the following software that I am currently looking to purchase to fill in the gaps to my virtual orchestra.

    http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/84/1349.vsl

    Now find me the equivalent in quality, function and ease of use in FOSS Mr. K. Oh, BTW I suggest that you read the information on these carefully and listen to the sample output before replying.

    I look forward to your answer.

  33. oldman says:

    “It means you are an old fool who is too lazy to think, too arrogant to change and too committed to an outmoded paradigm. ”

    Well Mr. K. at least you’ve become more verbose in your insults. It is a sort of improvement.

    OK Mr. K heres a little challenge: take a look at the programs described on the following sites

    http://www.finalemusic.com/default.aspx

    Also

    http://www.garritan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154&Itemid=54

    and

    http://www.garritan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=159

    and

    http://www.soundsonline.com/Symphonic-Choirs

    In addition, you may want to take a look at the following software that I am currently looking to purchase to full in the gaps to my virtual orchestra.

    http://www.vsl.co.at/en/65/71/84/1349.vsl

    Now find me the equivalent in quality, function and ease of use in FOSS Mr. K. Oh and BTW I suggest you look at what these programs carefully do and give a listen to the the samples, before you post your answer.

    I look forward to your response.

  34. Dr Loser says:

    Hi Koz: I see ww’re back to the personal insults that you accuse everybody else of but would never stoop to, yourself.

    All good entertaining stuff.

    @Robert: I purposefully left the option in of config/mk/mkinst, because my experience is far different from yours. Now, admittedly, I have not tried this for (I think) four years, and it may be better. But I doubt it, because the underlying conditions are the same.

    First of all you are quite likely to be screwed at the glibc stage. Or is it the eglibc stage? Anyway, there’s a good chance that there is fundamental breakages in the intermediary between the app and the OS. I have certainly seen this.

    Secondly, if you are going to deal with (whichever) desktop, you are probably still screwed. The damn things just won’t stand still.

    Now, you can download and/or build from scratch a lot of the dependencies (although how you would sensibly do this for the C library and the desktop is beyond me), but then you’re stuck with two entirely separate dependency sets for everything else. This is never a clean solution and rarely a pleasant one.

    But you have the code, oh yes. There was an excellent visual sysadmin tool a while back (I forget its name, unfortunately, and I’d be grateful if somebody remembers it for me). It had bells and whistles and a graphical representation of the, er, graph of all running Linux processes, with filters and statistics and everything.

    It was awesome.

    It broke two years later on some X-dependency or other (I forget which; I chased it down and fixed it, and it worked again). Soon after, it disappeared from sight.

    This is not an uncommon tendency in the Linux world. Either the original developers get bored, or else the code does, almost literally, rust in the relentless thrashing of unstable APIs and ABIs.

    @oiaohm:

    Well, your’re right and LSB is almost certainly the most likely option. I don’t expect it to work very often, at least over a period of six years, because during that period there isn’t a single distro I can think of that is LSB-compliant. I’m open to education on that point, however.

    Having thus demolished my rhetorical flourish, can you give me an estimate of how many Linux apps this covers? You don’t have to dig through the bran-tub. For sanity’s sake, we can limit it to, say, the most popular fifty. (And no, OOo 3.01, 3.02. 3.03 — the version numbers are illustrative only — don’t count. One major version for each app. Fifty distinct apps.)

    I’m willing to bet that only ten out of these fifty will even install and cough up a start screen on, say, Ubuntu NN or OO, or the latest Mint. Or even the latest Debian/Stable.

    Apart from anything else, it wouldn’t surprise me if the apt-get package itself is no longer compatible with the 2011 distro apt-get.

  35. Kozmcrae says:

    @lman is blind as a bat, an arrogant fool or both. FLOSS produces software that everyone uses. Software that no proprietary company could possibly produce on their own. Software that people use to great effect to make a lot of money. Software that is free and Free.

    “You get what you pay for.” That is another one of your empty remarks @ldman. The reader is supposed to supply the meaning, so I’ll go ahead and give it to you. It means you are an old fool who is too lazy to think, too arrogant to change and too committed to an outmoded paradigm.

    You deserve all that you pay for and none of what is given to you.

  36. oldman says:

    “Do you want to rethink that remark or shall I help you?”

    Go right ahead Mr. K. It will be interesting to see what infantile drivel you come up with.

  37. oldman wrote, “you get what you pay for”.

    That’s probably true in a market where stuff is bought and sold for money, but FLOSS usually is traded for other reasons and by other means. Usually, in FLOSS, since the cost of copying is so much less than the cost of production one gets more than one pays for, literally. It’s a different model and it works very well. Good software, rather than making tons of money for a few benefits everyone. Have I paid money for FLOSS? A little. I have downloaded torrents of .iso images and shared several times more than I downloaded. I have written documentation. I have introduced FLOSS to people and I have installed FLOSS, a Hell of a lot of it. So, I have done something for the ecosystem of FLOSS. That’s all anyone can do. Because their are millions of creators and users of FLOSS, everything that needs to be done does get done.

    Watch for it. Here is a free ad for Debian GNU/Linux. I recommend it.

  38. Kozmcrae says:

    “And IMHO you get what you pay for.”

    Do you want to rethink that remark or shall I help you?

  39. oldman says:

    “People attack out of fear.”

    We are users who live actively in both worlds who also disagree with what we view is the blatantly inaccurate views that Pog continually broadcasts in his blog. He permits us to dissent, and we do so.

    With the exception of a few verbal bomb throwers, there probably isnt a single one of use who doesnt deal with Linux and FOSS in some form daily.

  40. oldman says:

    “Every year there is much more and better software available all for the same low price.”

    And IMHO you get what you pay for.

  41. oldman wrote, “If one could just run an old binary on linux without modification, it seems to me that then and only then would you have a case.”

    That’s a straw man, oldman. With GNU/Linux it’s rare that anyone would have to run an old binary. I’ve only done it a couple of times and I use a lot of FLOSS. For me it was a case of trying to get something to run on really old hardware.

    It’s FLOSS. There’s little cost in updating software so it happens. Look at Munich. They’ve upgraded their distro several times with no impact on cost whatsoever. They have no need to run OpenOffice.org 2.0 or whatever was current back when they started their migration. If Munich doesn’t have to run old software, no one does. The other thing is that even if the old software needs to be run on a new machine, the complete old environment is available in source code so the application will run on that even if we have to call modern hardware 286. Intel has that much backwards compatibility. The systems in the old days of GNU/Linux fit easily on a CD and can be built from source on a new machine in about the same time as the modern kernel, less than half an hour. It’s still a wildly small case, though, because of the rapid development model of FLOSS. Every year there is much more and better software available all for the same low price.

  42. oldman says:

    “Really DR Loser how often do you think I have to do this. I run debian that is a cross bread between stable and testing. Where I force lock versions of stuff. It a rare case that I am in conflict. 0install with a little effort can address any dependency conflict and give me the application I want. I am never locked to what the distribution decides for me.”

    In short you have to use deep experience and technical tricks that even sysadmins these days don’t use all that often in order to make your solutions work. Since most people don’t have this level of experience, you are effectively undercutting your own argument.

    If one could just run an old binary on linux without modification, it seems to me that then and only then would you have a case.

  43. Dr. Loser wrote, “go and configure/make/make install me any random Linux app from 2005 (I’m being fair here. It might just work).”

    No problem. Just run the Linux kernel and GNU tool set used to build the thing in those days. The source code is available for many apps for many years. It’s FLOSS. You can keep it around as long as you like. RedHat has oldies. There are many others too. I may still have the first installation CD I ever used. It will likely run fine in a virtual machine.

  44. Observer wrote, “People attack out of fear.”

    Amen. I doubt many of these people actually work for M$ but they work for “partners” and fear paid employment will dry up if FLOSS prevails. Clearly that’s not the case but they are not convinced.

  45. oiaohm says:

    Phenom just because there is more than one path does not make it not feasible.

    Not all old windows applications are feasible to run either. LSB binaries are very feasible. 0install solutions is feasible. chroot solutions is feasible.

    The question is what is the applications that old the user needs to run. This decides the method.

    The simple point that you want to call it not feasible is the reality ruins you argument. That how feasible is dependent on the application. Openoffice 1.0 install package is still very feasible to install today even that it is from 2001.

    Dr Loser did not select an application he presumed all was no feasible. Invalid presume.

  46. Phenom says:

    Ohio, you bested yourself again with an even longer way to say “no, it is not feasible”.

  47. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    “Tell you what, if you can even apt-get me a foobar-gui-2005 on any Linux distro at all, and I don’t even care how trivial it is, and I’m not going to specify a desktop of choice … in fact, sod that, let’s deal with the CLI.”
    2005 any application is easy. Because you have allowed me to set conditions. If that applications is a Linux Standards Base application. That comes into existence in the year 2000. It will be a rpm or deb file. Just to be evil it will be installable on any distribution that is LSB compatible.

    Canonical, Kylin, Linpus, Mandriva, Neoshine, Novell, Oracle, Red Flag and Red Hat…. To use any LSB application created from the year 2000 on. rpm or alien to install the application.

    If you want something LSB dig out a old copy of Openoffice straight from openoffice. Still installs today with only minor issue at best and that is openoffice 1.0 on. Menu integration might not work if you choose one from 2001.

    apt-get no that will work because that that is to download into current distribution. If you want that to work you will go chroot.

    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/linux-binary-compatibility.html 1998 on is possible for the binary to basically just work. But there is on standards on library names back then. 2000 start of LSB and the start of standard library naming.

    For Phenom benefit robert and me are not that in conflict we just have different idea of what is worth the time.
    For before 1995-1998 the loader was changed in its location in the system. Still can be made work but messy. So I don’t mess around with that stuff.

    Anything after 1998 is when Linux changed to elf. 1999 is the last kernel abi to userspace change that is major.

    Basically 1999 on is the easy stuff. 1995-1999 can be a pain in but.

    1995 and before Linux are hell to make run today. Still possible with a custom built 3.1 kernel but no way in hell am I going to custom build the kernel just to run some old program from 1995 and before that is most likely deprecated 20 times over.

    2000 on the only reason why an application will not work is missing libraries that are no longer included in more modern distributions due to deprecation. Is this fixable hell yes. In case of this choose your poison. Install old distribution that runs the application in a chroot. Yes you can chroot install any distribution from 2000 on.

    Or most likely lighter Play with the dynamic loader. This playing with the dynamic loader is simpler for LSB applications since there dynamic loader is very much like windows. Place /opt/-application-/lib any library that the current system does not have that they were built with the presume it was existing. Yes the exact same hack you do under windows to make some old applications work.

    You can override the loader on Linux forcing the old elf applications to be loaded by the LSB loader so also giving this effect.

    Running old applications is not that hard on Linux is more deciding what way you prefer and how much disk space you are willing to give up. ie chroot full distribution is kind large. Then LSB loader or loader directives are lighter but a little more of a pain in but of having to manually extract libraries from packages for the applications that don’t work.

    Of course anything wrapped up in 0install and other platform neutral Linux loading solutions just work as well.

    Dr Loser basically if you have to use a compiler you are doing something wrong.

    Yes you can force install a 2005 binary and pray. You may have to place a loader wrapper around and provide a few extra libraries. Of course if it something LSB is very simple. Even better if it don’t work it simple to remove.

    Dr Loser you have a right to complain that the process of wrapping older binaries is not automatized. In theory it could be very simply. Force install attempt to run detect what libraries are missing and pull them in so application works bingo done.

    Really binary compatibility on Linux all its missing is a automatic way to do the pull in that is neat. Oinstall is close http://0install.net/pkg2zero.html but you have to manually step through the dependencies. Chroot is heavy but dependable.

    Really DR Loser how often do you think I have to do this. I run debian that is a cross bread between stable and testing. Where I force lock versions of stuff. It a rare case that I am in conflict. 0install with a little effort can address any dependency conflict and give me the application I want. I am never locked to what the distribution decides for me.

    When you are a person like me binary compatibility is not the issue. Dependency hell caused by package manager designs being a prick are the issue. Not allowing you to install conflicting versions when you require it. So forcing work around like 0install.

    How does windows address the same problem SXS that Linux does not have a standard form of other than in LSB binaries and items like 0install. So more use of LSB binaries would see me need 0install less. Of course a lack of auto solver to populate /opt/-application-/lib is a pain in but. Yes Linux is that close to binary backward compatibility perfection.

    Ivan You did not read the instructions. Xinerama is the worse nail and the xfree86 libraries are in fact not a issue. That is if you installed the full x.org server with compatibility bits. But for tribes 2 due to how crappy of a program the old 2001 version is I recommend wine. 2004 version support multi processors and takes advantage of them. And the wine d3d wrapper is lighter than the loki wrapper. Also the wine d3d wrapper does better results as well.

    Sometimes the best answer is wine. Because the Linux binary is that old and that crappy it not worth using. Same I would not recommend anyone bother installing a 2001 disc version of tribe 2 on windows either but goto the site and download the 2004 version and install that since it will work better even under windows due cpu correction.

    Now if there was a 2004 Linux binary I might be interested in running that. That you can make something work does not mean you should.

  48. Observer says:

    From the replies I see on this blog I see a lot
    to discredit gnu/linux and Robert Pogson.
    People attack out of fear.

  49. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert (sigh):

    ‘Ivan wrote, “Can you name a single program compiled in the same time period that still runs reasonably well within a modern Linux system, Bob?”

    ‘Chuckle. Irrelevant. Straw man. I can run the current versions of FLOSS any time any place, because it’s FLOSS. Why would I want to run some obsolete crap from the past unless on an ancient machine?’

    Not everybody wants a constant flurry of apt-gets, possible recompilation, figuring out the difference between the menu options on Gnome 2.4 and Gnome 2.6 (I’m not picking on either and I don’t even care whether they exist. That is not the point.)

    I want to run a word-processing program. Up until very recently, I could do that with Word98, which transferred in a nice and professional way.

    I want to run a moderately capable spreadsheet system. I think Excel98 did the same thing. The only real difference at this point is that O/Libre has a semi-working clone of Word98 and nothing remotely like Excel98.

    This is just what 99% of users (including people down my local, who have saved their Excel spreadsheets since the days of floppy disks) want to run.

    It is NOT a “straw man.”

    It is a perfectly reasonable objection to the Linux way of doing things, let alone the Linux desktop incompetence in execution.

    Those ancient obsolete crap machines, incidentally?

    What happened to the concept of recycling (in a GNU/Linux network) and repurposing (as small thin GNU/Linux client thingies)?

    Are you turning to the ways of the Devil Beast in Redmond, Robert?

    Cleanse Your Soul!

    And after that, go and configure/make/make install me any random Linux app from 2005 (I’m being fair here. It might just work).

    Tell you what, if you can even apt-get me a foobar-gui-2005 on any Linux distro at all, and I don’t even care how trivial it is, and I’m not going to specify a desktop of choice … in fact, sod that, let’s deal with the CLI.

    If you can do that, then you have a point.

    Otherwise, you have nothing.

  50. Dr Loser says:

    @Ray:

    Oh no, Joe! Say it ain’t so!

    But of course each and every one of them is GNU/Linux ready, anyhow. It’s the Magic Pixie Dust, you see.

  51. Kozmcrae says:

    Ivan obviously loves old games. Here are a bunch of his favorites: http://mightygodking.com/fun-from-yesterday-static.htm

  52. Ray says:

    About the 40 server processors, I believe that most of them would just have different clock speeds, like most processors.

  53. Ivan wrote, “Backwards compatibility may be irrelevant to you and people like you, Bob, but for the rest of the planet, (you know, the ninety-nine percent that actually pay for software that works) want backwards compatibility and appreciate it.”

    You mean people actually pay to have bugs copied from Lose 3.1 to “7”? Amazing.

    I have seen lots of commercial software that did not work, eg. IE and that other OS. I don’t want that backwards compatibility. I want freedom from BSODS and malware.

  54. Ivan says:

    Backwards compatibility may be irrelevant to you and people like you, Bob, but for the rest of the planet, (you know, the ninety-nine percent that actually pay for software that works) want backwards compatibility and appreciate it.

    Until you FOSSies realize this, your darling Linux desktop will be stuck in the statistical noise level of desktop operating systems. No one wants to use a system that breaks compatibility with their existing programs.

    Oh and Mr. Ham, thanks for the laugh. Your wall of rambling gibberish fails to prove there is backwards compatibility in Linux, as expected.

    Here is a wall of rambling gibberish of my own that explains why you are wrong:

    Tribes 2, fails to launch following your first link to the letter. The wonderful Xorg ABI prevents it. This is something you’d know if you had experience with it beyond using Google.

    See, Loki Games wasn’t all that, most of their ports were so poorly done with unnecessary dependencies (like the dependency on XFree86 in Tribes 2) that it was a wonder they stayed in business long enough to lose over a million dollars on Quake 3: Arena, but that is neither here nor there.

    Sixteen bit games, ahh retro gaming re-waisting the countless hours of the 90’s that were wasted on games. You would have us believe that it is impossible to play Daggerfall (a free download from Bethesda) on Windows 7 x64. You are, as usual, wrong.

    The game works just fine in DOSBox and, when you are done recapturing your misspent youth, you can get real work accomplished in an environment that doesn’t treat its users like second class citizens by forcing them to reconfigure their desktop applications every six to eighteen months. This, of course, is assuming those applications are still available from your selected distribution and you aren’t forced to find alternatives because someone wanted to reinvent the wheel for whatever the excuse of the moment is.

    I do, however, find it telling that your solution for native gaming on Linux, is to use the Windows binary in the Wine D3D wrapper. You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Ham.

  55. From 1995 to 2000, GNU/Linux went from a few thousand to many million desktops. The growth was phenomenal and continue today. According to NetApplications, growth is now 100% per annum. It was 30-40% for many years. GNU/Linux being ready for the desktop and applications being available are two different things. GNU/Linux was ready in 1995. Applications were ready about 2000. Shortly after that OpenOffice.org was open for business and a major hurdle was overcome. There are not many hurdles left. It’s a process, not a year. The process may well end within a few years. There are not that many desktops left to convert at that rate of growth.

  56. Phenom says:

    Wow, wow, Ohio, wait for a minute. Pogson just said in another post that Linux was pretty good to everything back in 1995. Now, you say that there was no good software from 1999.

    Would the two of you please make up your mind since when actually Linux was ready for desktop?

  57. Clarence Moon wrote, of RHEL desktops, “Do they actually sell much of it?”

    Yep. By the thousands. Businesses love that one guy can manage 10K PCs as easily as one.

    University of FL has RedHat desktops.

  58. Clarence Moon says:

    I am confused by the Red Hat stuff, Mr. Pogson. Years ago, you could buy Red Hat Linux in a box for about $80 in book stores and some other places. I haven’t seen it there for a long time. For $179 to $299 a year, it doesn’t seem all that cheap compared to the one-time cost of Windows. Do they actually sell much of it?

  59. Red Hat does sell support for desktop GNU/Linux. see http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/

    Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Desktops or Workstations
    Desktop

    • Self-support Subscription (1 year)
      (Only available in self support)
    • Workstation
      Self-support Subscription (1 year)
      (Only available in self support)
      $179
    • Standard Subscription (1 year)
      $299
  60. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon even worse for a closed source application on Linux is how simple repo system makes finding the competitor to their product.

    MS appstore idea for Windows might have some nasty side effects. Linux has been seeing the nasty side effects of a app-store on closed source.

  61. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon most cases have been long term failures to compete. Best example of this was Nero burning software it features even that it is was loved on windows was highly under the grade required.

    K3B and the gnome equal feature kicked Nero around the ballpark. When it first released on Linux only feature advantage it had was bluray drive support. Worst Nero would refuse to copy Linux installation disks. Lemon on Linux. By the time bluray burning was required K3B and other Linux software had it as well and it was still a feature poor program.

    Corel draw basically died on Linux when Linux got xara xtreme. Same package is able to be got for windows but there is a difference. Clarence Moon cost. Xara xtreme on Linux costs nothing. Windows version you have to pay. They get free developer support on Linux.

    This is where things get highly interesting. There are a lot of applications that are the same application yet the Linux and open source version is free and the Windows version you better have money.

    History is a list of applications left by the side of road. Please note Wordperfect also goes by the side of road when Novel takes them over and starts pushing go-oo to be developed in the community.

    Lot is sad bad selections.

    There have been some items like Orcale database but they are still facing stiff fight from the FOSS world.

    Basically this is the issue is a savage battle ground for closed source applications on the Linux desktop. There are so many good to decent applications that are free that the closed source application has to be better than. Competition they don’t face on windows.

    Phenom
    –Wow, Ohio, what a long way to say “no, it is not feasible”.–
    Wrong the correct answer is mostly it not worth the time because the quality applications were never released for Linux prior to 1999 either.

    There are some closed source Linux programs worth the effort but they were made after 1999 and still all can be made work perfectly without very much effort really. One or two minor issues that is all. The process of support can be automated if people wish to put in the time.

  62. Bilbophile says:

    Oh, while Red hat cannot provide support for proprietary binary programs, Oracle can support their entire application stack, including Oracle Linux, the rebranded Red Hat Linux distribution.

  63. Bilbophile says:

    Mr. Moon,

    The irony is that WordPerfect was released under a non-free licence. OpenOffice.org did have a free licence and therefore, when Oracle lost heart, LibreOffice could be developed. Or, for instance, Debian users can enjoy Firefox security patches for longer than Mozilla Foundation is willing to supply them for the minor hassle of a change in the name of the application.

  64. Clarence Moon says:

    “Pity versions did not keep on coming”

    I think that is the crux of the problem for Linux. There are doubtless many programs that continue to exist year over year, but the user does not see that he or she has any leverage over the supplier. If something is free and being supplied at what seems to be the whim and fancy of the supplier, they see nothing that ensures that the product will continue to evolve should the provided lose interest or need to devote their productive time to something that pays the rent.

    There have been a number of attempts to sell popular proprietary product software for desktop Linux and a large number of them have come to an unsatisfactory end. Even companies like Red Hat and Linspire could not sell Linux support along with binary code to that market.

  65. Ivan wrote, “Can you name a single program compiled in the same time period that still runs reasonably well within a modern Linux system, Bob?”

    Chuckle. Irrelevant. Straw man. I can run the current versions of FLOSS any time any place, because it’s FLOSS. Why would I want to run some obsolete crap from the past unless on an ancient machine? I have done that but just for fun. For real work, I use something like the latest version on more recent hardware. I can build binaries from source code or run existing binaries. I have that choice with FLOSS but not with non-free software.

    If you want to run old binaries, you can find them here for 2002+ and here for earlier. Where is the source code or binaries for old versions of that other OS? Oh! M$ tells you not to run that old stuff because it performs better than the new stuff. Shame you can’t run your hardware as you see fit using that other OS. Use FLOSS instead. I recommend Debian GNU/Linux.

  66. Phenom says:

    Wow, Ohio, what a long way to say “no, it is not feasible”.

  67. oiaohm says:

    Ivan I am sorry to have to break this I have no issue using binaries form older systems a lot on Linux.

    Option 1 Chroot solution. Simple install in a chroot. Surprisingly the modern 3.1 kernel is compatible enough for most applications to work

    Option 2 more secure option. linux dynamic loader option. Simple fact is linux kernel has zero clue about .so files. Anything using those is using a loader. The loader can lie about kernel by being passed LD_ASSUME_KERNEL funny enough required Linux kernel is in the .note.ABI-tag.

    Of course there is a fail point. 2.2.5 Linux kernel and before. Is tricky as well. 2.2.5 is 1999. Basically anything from 1999 to current can be made work perfectly in most cases. The exceptions are highly rare for any Linux built program.

    .note.ABI-tag can be added to any dynamic binary.

    Prior to 1999 for a Linux binary options are limited to emulation and some nasty recompile stunts. Unless you are lucky and they just work. Yes there are some binaries for Linux 1.0 that still run perfectly without any tweaking at all. So 1991-1999 is pray that it runs for native Linux binaries.

    Yes 1991-1999 with windows binaries on Windows 7 is also pray that it runs. 64 bit Windows XP on will not run 16 bit NE binaries. Wine still does under 64 bit Linux. The zone of doom is the same point.

    http://elven.de/2007/11/03/the-ultimate-guide-to-tribes-2-on-linux Yes these instructions still work. Please note the list of 1-4 the game did when it was new. 5 yes that is the new due to more powerful cpus these days but fixable. Still works as badly as it ever did like most loki stuff was.

    Over at wine we are needing a tester who wants to test tribes 2. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=15415&iTestingId=46567 We have a high suspect it works perfectly. But we have no one wanting to play and and provide reports.

    What you get off steam is the 2004 build of tribe not the 2001 one. Same with a lot of programs on steam. Why we know this is wine runs a lot of steam programs. Old versions and new version. Yes so the differences in libraries used and it shows. Most of that steam stuff is not the same binaries as they were they have been rebuilt My example is serous-ally a truly old version of tribes 2 ie 2001.

    Also I hope you did not pay for Tribes 2 off steam thinking the 2004 version of windows is free.

    Also Starsiege: Tribes from 2004 the last build we need testers as well. Correct versions of wine it works perfectly but we need testers to report what version it does work.

    Basically if you allow me to move the start point to 1999 on everything built from Linux after that still works as badly as it ever did other than firewall control software that does not work because the Linux kernel changed how the firewall works 3 times. Ok maybe a custom library directory with libraries it requesting that are not provided in current distrobutions but extractable from old distrobutions and work on current kernel without issue. Yes for the libraries that are abi compatible you can have the old programs use the current versions. Just like windows. Also just like windows over ride libraries that are not compatible.

    Wordperfect 9.0 for Linux from the year 2000 still works perfectly. Corel draw for Linux from year 2000 also still works perfectly. Pity versions did not keep on coming.

    Lot of old stuff does work perfectly either native on Linux or in Wine.

    There is a growing list of applications in platinum status on wine. Big issue is lack of testers so developers know when they have broken something.

  68. Dan Serban says:

    @Ivan, if that’s your last stand, your last remaining selling point in evangelizing those thechnologies, then … ROFL.

  69. Ivan says:

    “M$ has umpteen versions of its OS.”

    Yet, with any of these ‘umpteen versions’ (3 to be precise) I can wander to gog.com or store.steampowered.com and purchase a program that was last compiled in 1998, a full three years before the oldest supported version of Windows, Windows XP, and it will run reasonably well in the latest version of Windows, Windows 7.

    Can you name a single program compiled in the same time period that still runs reasonably well within a modern Linux system, Bob?

    Any program, from Office Software like WordPerfect or Corel Draw to games like Tribes 2.

    Name one that still installs and works reasonably well on a modern system.

Leave a Reply