By: Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com), August 11, 2011 12:58 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 8/11/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>Call me whatever, but Charlie is a journalist. They should be portraying things
>as accurately as possible. That's the only reason they exist anyway. Article saying
>that Intel's Open Source driver needs compiling to work should have included a statement
>saying that it works really well when its actually done.
If there was a driver that actually functioned when released, I would have done that. Unfortunately for you and the revisionist history you are spouting to fit your viewpoint, there wasn't a functional driver. It didn't work at all on release, nor for weeks afterwards.
> There's a huge difference
>between not having alternatives at all(Windows, you are stuck with the driver whether
>you are knowledgeable or not), versus needing technological knowledge to get it
>working(matter of time before it gets integrated en masse).
>
If Mike Larabel couldn't do it at the time, I doubt there was anoyone on earth that could have. This was no doubt aided and abetted by fact that THE DRIVERS WERE NON-FUNCTIONAL. :)
>About being "biased". I doubt noone is even tiny bit unbiased. Actually biases
>should exist so flaws of opposite sides are exposed. A proper journalist should
>say things about both sides equally regardless of which sides he's leaning to.
>
I did, you just didn't agree, so you whine and toss out straw men.
>Compiling: If you read about Linux tutorials they prop you up by saying be prepared
>to learn a lot or things won't work. I agree not all Linux distros are like that.
>But with so many versions available, its already more complicated than Windows.
>With significantly less marketshare and most of its users needing it for specific
>uses, its bound to have more knowledgeable users. Unlike Windows, which is used by practically everyone.
OK, now your ignorance is showing through. May I suggest you go out and practice what you preach before you pretend that it is correct.
-Charlie
---------------------------
>Call me whatever, but Charlie is a journalist. They should be portraying things
>as accurately as possible. That's the only reason they exist anyway. Article saying
>that Intel's Open Source driver needs compiling to work should have included a statement
>saying that it works really well when its actually done.
If there was a driver that actually functioned when released, I would have done that. Unfortunately for you and the revisionist history you are spouting to fit your viewpoint, there wasn't a functional driver. It didn't work at all on release, nor for weeks afterwards.
> There's a huge difference
>between not having alternatives at all(Windows, you are stuck with the driver whether
>you are knowledgeable or not), versus needing technological knowledge to get it
>working(matter of time before it gets integrated en masse).
>
If Mike Larabel couldn't do it at the time, I doubt there was anoyone on earth that could have. This was no doubt aided and abetted by fact that THE DRIVERS WERE NON-FUNCTIONAL. :)
>About being "biased". I doubt noone is even tiny bit unbiased. Actually biases
>should exist so flaws of opposite sides are exposed. A proper journalist should
>say things about both sides equally regardless of which sides he's leaning to.
>
I did, you just didn't agree, so you whine and toss out straw men.
>Compiling: If you read about Linux tutorials they prop you up by saying be prepared
>to learn a lot or things won't work. I agree not all Linux distros are like that.
>But with so many versions available, its already more complicated than Windows.
>With significantly less marketshare and most of its users needing it for specific
>uses, its bound to have more knowledgeable users. Unlike Windows, which is used by practically everyone.
OK, now your ignorance is showing through. May I suggest you go out and practice what you preach before you pretend that it is correct.
-Charlie
