[linrad] Re: OS's & fonts / Knoppix 4.0.2-EN; hardware; Re: [linrad] Re: Upgrading; pixel count

["leif@xxxxxxxxxx" <leif@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Zaba, Ramiro and all,

> > The empirical experience with other DSP-software, like WSJT and many
> > others shows that installation under Windows is far less problematic
> > from the viewpoint of the user. I have no doubt that the situation is
> > much more problematic on the Win-developer's side before the release
> > of the software package. Maybe it would simply crash if released in a
> > development stage that allows still partial operation in a Linux-based
> > environment, given the appropriate configuration and tools at the user.
> 
> Yes, no doubt Windows software is easier to install.
Hmmm, Installing Windows is not quite that easy. My old Win system has
crashed, the motherboard has reached end of life. I found another motherboard,
I was able to "repair" the Windows installation, but I could not make graphics 
work correctly. Only low resolution screens:-( I have not been able to locate
any drive routine, I have had to replace the video card with another video
card for which I had the manufacturers CD. Under Linux it is not by far that 
bad. Linux will detect the hardware and supply drive routines provided that
the hardware is more than one or two years old. Windows update or the old
Win 2000 CD do not support the video card. It is labelled GF4 MX440, but
my Gforce CD does not detect this card, I had to put another GF4 into the
computer to get it properly detected by the windows install program from 
the CD.

I do not think the fundamental difference between Win and Linux is so big
when it comes to hardware compatibility problems. The main thing is that
we are so silly that we spend money on hardware for which the manufacturer 
does not supply Linux drivers. We do not require Microsoft to supply drivers 
for every possible hardware, we get drivers from manufacturers. Under Linux
we find it difficult to purchase hardware for which the manufacturer supplies 
drivers. Using this as an argument that Linux is difficult is unfair indeed.

 
> I am going to make a silly question due to my programming ignorance.
> Would it be possible to realease a Linux binary Linrad package, with
> every needed libraries compiled statically?. An executable that have
> everything embedded? Even if it is a very big package it would be easier
> to install. I do not know if it is possible to do that.
It would be possible, but personally I am not interested. You must understand 
that Linrad "the real thing" is supplied as source code only with the hope 
that this will make the probability larger that other amateurs go along and
modify the code to fit their own preferences. Some day I expect to be able to 
use improvements and inventions made by others:-) The Windows version will not
have a similar performance simply because under my hands, Windows is very 
far from a real-time OS. Linux (any distribution) is very close because if
the computer is not fast enough to run for example "updatedb" in the background
while Linrad is running, the operator can easily disable cron or whatever
demon that started it. To me, there is no way of controlling the background
activities of Windows. When I run 2x96 kHz bandwidth under Linux, a Pentium III
is perfectly adequate. Not so under Windows. A singel channel with 22 kHz
bandwidth is ok under Windows though. Probably I can improve a bit, but I do
not have much hope to make Windows a good platform for Linrad. I think it
will just be something to motivate people to install Linux. The 2x96 kHz 
processing under Windows uses 50% of the CPU but the remaining 50% is not
enough for tasks that Windows want to have processed now and then. There is 
also a problem to avoid getting swapped to disk under Windows.

Everything is so much easier under Linux so I will put my main effort there.
Maybe someone else will be interested in making the code run better under
Windows.


> > Mainly due to my ignorance I would not like to give absolute statements
> > regarding the ranking of various OS's, but being brainwashed with the
> > Win-fonts through the years, I have not been able to see smooth fonts
> > on the Linux-side, the way I like them while e.g. browsing under Win.
I just can not believe this is a real difference between the systems.
I do think Win and Linux differ significantly in many respects once you are
inside a user program. (Besides CPU and memory efficiency) I think
that some of the peculiarities of Windows that I dislike the most are 
carefully figured out and implemented because most computer users really
like to have it that way. The minority who wants to "live closer to the 
hardware" can use Linux and avoid the uneasy feeling of the machine doing
unknown things in its own way....


73

Leif / SM5BSZ

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <linrad-off@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <linrad-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <linrad-index@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Send administrative queries to  <linrad-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


LINRADDARNIL