GL_EXT_framebufer_object
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
Uprade to windows XP or an nvidia card.
ATI and Lunix combination is like trying to run windows on a powermac.
ATI and Lunix combination is like trying to run windows on a powermac.
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
Only to the sadists and masochists who run lunix.... oh... wait.....
Sure it is. Linux is fated to fail epically. Its been what... 10 years now, and Linux still hasn't managed to snare 1% of the market from Other, less sadomasochistic operating systems that contain the majority of runtime required.
Now this is surprising.... a Linux user who can't spell incompatible...... Like PsyMan has said, this is a Vendor issue, and its nothing thats going to change. ATI cards are not made with Linux in mind, they follow the money, and the money is with Windows, as even the Official Linux driver fails with numerous opengl extensions.
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
Yep, its not a application issue, its a Driver issue.
Report it to the open source driver developers, its their issue to fix.
Report it to the open source driver developers, its their issue to fix.
Sorry to drag this further off topic, but..
1%? Where are you hearing such crazy numbers?
Ballmer: Linux Bigger Competitor than Apple
Now I know MS isn't giving an actual number here but look at that slice and tell me that Microsoft themselves think that Linux has a 1% share. Because it looks like at least 5% to me.
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
Re-read it as "The Shares haven't changed in the last 10 years"
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
Apple is propietary in nearly every aspect, its hard to consider them a threat when you need to source every driver through apple itself.
Though the % of people using linux has kept the same all this time.
Though you can't really consider those who dual boot in either group.
Though the % of people using linux has kept the same all this time.
Though you can't really consider those who dual boot in either group.
Look, no. The number hasn't stayed the same. You're just making that information up. Needs much more credibility. Completely contradicts any numbers I've ever seen and any shred of common knowledge and common sense. Etcetera.
Apple has drastically more financial muscle and has been advertising very aggressively against Microsoft; they also have a loyal following that goes back decades as well as a newer trendy following that supports their mobile devices, and they get a lot of fresh Mac sales to the many people who need them to develop for iPhone at that.
Microsoft should take the threat of Apple seriously and they do. They just take the threat of Linux more seriously, and they should as well. Especially on a worldwide scale, where Linux has gained ground in poorer countries.
Apple has drastically more financial muscle and has been advertising very aggressively against Microsoft; they also have a loyal following that goes back decades as well as a newer trendy following that supports their mobile devices, and they get a lot of fresh Mac sales to the many people who need them to develop for iPhone at that.
Microsoft should take the threat of Apple seriously and they do. They just take the threat of Linux more seriously, and they should as well. Especially on a worldwide scale, where Linux has gained ground in poorer countries.
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
The numbers ARE the same. Marketshare is user driven, not installed on driven. The ratio does not take into account the fact that 1 user may use more then 1 computer, which is why it seems that the linux share seems to have increased.
It hasn't. The same % of people are using, The same % of users have just installed it on more computers.
The number of people = / = Ratio of people using it.
If you had the real numbers, you would take into account that 1 computer = / = 1 user as well and as such means that more users are using windows.
Statistics lie, as they don't take into account these facts, not to mention the majority of windows users don't even take part in the stupid numbers games.
The Ratio is the same.
It hasn't. The same % of people are using, The same % of users have just installed it on more computers.
The number of people = / = Ratio of people using it.
If you had the real numbers, you would take into account that 1 computer = / = 1 user as well and as such means that more users are using windows.
Statistics lie, as they don't take into account these facts, not to mention the majority of windows users don't even take part in the stupid numbers games.
The Ratio is the same.
Hahaha, okay man, whatever you say. You have no research, no numbers, just the claim that statistics lie but somehow your totally unfounded assertions are true. Do you really expect any rational person to take you seriously?
So right, basically your argument is that Linux users are more likely to be using it on more computers than Windows users. Now present your evidence.
So right, basically your argument is that Linux users are more likely to be using it on more computers than Windows users. Now present your evidence.
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
Well... I know a lot of people and schools and various companies that dual boot linux and windows.
Problem is, all the people I asked said that they just have linux installed for the sake of it and they switch to windows whenever they want to actually do something. I checked myself and the partitions containing linux installations were kinda "empty" of user data of any sort. This happens for the last dozen of years or so.
The only exception I encountered is linux fanboys that keep saying how great linux is compared to everything else... despite that they also have windows installed anyway.
There you have it. Real life example. Of course I could be making all this up... You know, just to keep the off-topic argument going and such.
Problem is, all the people I asked said that they just have linux installed for the sake of it and they switch to windows whenever they want to actually do something. I checked myself and the partitions containing linux installations were kinda "empty" of user data of any sort. This happens for the last dozen of years or so.
The only exception I encountered is linux fanboys that keep saying how great linux is compared to everything else... despite that they also have windows installed anyway.
There you have it. Real life example. Of course I could be making all this up... You know, just to keep the off-topic argument going and such.
There's really no point considering people using both as anything less than 1 vote for each camp, which I'm sure is what turns up in the data statistically proportional to the average amount of time one is used over the other.
I do find it a little hard to believe that people keep Linux installed "just for the sake of it", if they're never using it then people are liable to remove it.
Just the same, none of this has anything to do with the claims made. Even if a lot of Linux users also use Windows that still doesn't mean that Linux use hasn't grown (especially in the last 10 years, geez), nor does it mean that only 1% of people are using it. Just by looking at the increased number of OEM options regarding Linux you would be hard pressed to think there'd be no growth in the market. 10 years ago who was selling a Linux desktop? Now even Dell, the biggest OEM, is packaging them, and they're available on several netbooks as a cost cutting measure. And the number of advances Linux has made towards being more accessible to the average person are tremendous. You guys do realize 10 years ago was 1999 right? Do you have any idea how much Linux distributions have improved in both functionality and user friendliness since then?
PsyMan, your anecdotal evidence has nothing to do with what I asked for evidence either, that people with Linux are using it more machines/person than Windows. The only real argument to this is price, but your average person won't have a good reason to have more than one computer, and if they do have more than one they'll likely be OEMs that came with Windows, not machines they built themselves and had to purchase an OS for.
I do find it a little hard to believe that people keep Linux installed "just for the sake of it", if they're never using it then people are liable to remove it.
Just the same, none of this has anything to do with the claims made. Even if a lot of Linux users also use Windows that still doesn't mean that Linux use hasn't grown (especially in the last 10 years, geez), nor does it mean that only 1% of people are using it. Just by looking at the increased number of OEM options regarding Linux you would be hard pressed to think there'd be no growth in the market. 10 years ago who was selling a Linux desktop? Now even Dell, the biggest OEM, is packaging them, and they're available on several netbooks as a cost cutting measure. And the number of advances Linux has made towards being more accessible to the average person are tremendous. You guys do realize 10 years ago was 1999 right? Do you have any idea how much Linux distributions have improved in both functionality and user friendliness since then?
PsyMan, your anecdotal evidence has nothing to do with what I asked for evidence either, that people with Linux are using it more machines/person than Windows. The only real argument to this is price, but your average person won't have a good reason to have more than one computer, and if they do have more than one they'll likely be OEMs that came with Windows, not machines they built themselves and had to purchase an OS for.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Join the discussion
