Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 9 May 2020 06:25:17 -0400
From:      Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Microsoft Teams for Linux
Message-ID:  <20200509062517.00002c46@seibercom.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200509063222.94d762e9751a32c693d73d2f@sohara.org>
References:  <b64d57e2-f4d7-7618-c711-6501a652a6ac@suszko.eu> <20200505093624.00001df2@seibercom.net> <223da1b3-a83d-b2e8-36dc-468dcb219305@suszko.eu> <db68d8c4-cf3e-5a2f-63d9-f16f0b4f9559@lidstrom.eu> <fecdd83b-2061-a6c0-f927-c380cbc2b500@suszko.eu> <a0828175-6f75-92c4-ab48-bfd395e1a91d@suszko.eu> <ce6fe689-777f-7285-3483-76fb73ea3e82@suszko.eu> <f3a86f00-7e81-ec9d-2f29-c4d9bc3e0094@lidstrom.eu> <b28e6141-04bc-4f66-93e3-658929500c0c@suszko.eu> <CAM8r67Boe0dQt+1T8rdoubxNKaeDCaQ5UkY1nThM8UahF=WU3g@mail.gmail.com> <20200508113438.00006adc@seibercom.net> <CAM8r67DqhC37qoU99iBXPvSZAVVPezPCfKipOD-2xiig95-0TA@mail.gmail.com> <20200508185327.00007397@seibercom.net> <20200509063222.94d762e9751a32c693d73d2f@sohara.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
--Sig_/EsuYl6oSu0N71vr_ZmPpBTJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 9 May 2020 06:32:22 +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith commented:
>On Fri, 8 May 2020 18:53:27 -0400
>Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> wrote:
>
>> Both "Zoom" and "MS Teams" are working fine in my Win10 machine. I
>> have never tried to get them to work on FreeBSD, and I have no idea
>> why I would want to. I don't have a linux machine handy, although
>> that is on my "to-do" list. Perhaps by the end of this summer. =20
>
> One good reason for wanting them working on Linux or FreeBSD is not
> owning a Windows machine. I don't, so if I wished to use either of
> those tools it seems I would need to buy one or try and get it to
> work on something else.

You seem to be under some preconceived notion that your need to 'own' a
Windows or other OS machine. You could run the application(s) in a VM.
It is becoming ubiquitous from what I have observed.

> Standards compliance is usually a good way to make applications that
> work well on all platforms but it does seem that some vendors that
> prefer to break that in order to work around deficiencies in their
> major market platforms.

I am so sick and tired of a bunch of "Whiney Wieners" crying about
standards. I mean, there are just so many standards. Just pick the one
you like. After all, FreeBSD uses all the same standards and protocols
as Linux and the assortment of other non-Microsoft operating systems,
doesn't it; or does it? The ability to reinvent is at the core of your
dislike of other systems. If it were not for the progress made in
computing and thereby breaking "standards," or as I refer to them as
"anchors," we would still be using telephone modems and slow ones at
that. Heck, the Internet as we know it today would not even exist. Bill
Gates and Steve Jobs spent fortunes on innovations and improvements to
get us where we are today. They literally created new "standards."

"Standards Compliance" is simply a tool used to stifle innovation. IEEE
802.11ac was ANSI approved 2013-12-11. FreeBSD still does not fully
support it. By your logic, there should never have even been
'networking cards" developed; just stay with the old phone modem. The
IEEE 802.11ax, marketed as Wi-Fi 6 by Wi-Fi Alliance, extends, you
would say, "breaks" many of the 'standards' currently in "802.11ac".
I'll bet that really pisses you off. Don't worry too much; it will be
at least a decade before FreeBSD gets it working. I'm sure you believe
the 'vendor' owes FreeBSD a driver for the product. After all, FreeBSD
did contribute to the products development, did it not?

> This is of course a valid (if irritating) commercial decision
> with strong short term benefits (the application works great on the
> major platforms). The downside being that there is no pressure to
> adhere to standards so it won't work well on anything else and neither
> can anyone get anything else to work as well on the major platforms.
> This is of course not a downside for the application vendor - one
> reason why OS vendors should not be allowed to sell applications IMHO,
> but that boat sailed decades ago.

One of the motives behind innovation is to create a new or improved
market that will enhance the vendors' cash revenue. It is a circle.
Vendor hired competent (usually) individuals to create or extend
products that they (the vendor) can sell at a profit which they use to
pay their employees. I know that concept is foreign to 'socialists',
but it is how the real world works. If they were forced to adhere to
some pseudo standard, innovation would never happen. Thank GOD we have
people who can think for themselves and aren't slaves to outdated
doctrine.

Your ill-conceived idea that vendors should not be allowed to create and
sell software for their OS is absurd. A vendor creates an OS and then
writes applications to work on the OS. As the applications improve and,
or public requests for newer features or products develop, the vendor
improves, updates, or rewrites the underlying OS to support
applications that the public wants or desires. It is a standard
business cycle. It is the same way TV stations create programming, or
Netflix revolutionized the streaming industry by creating its own
programming. Using your logic, that should never have been allowed.

I have a gas-powered car. Do I have the right to bitch at General
Motors because it won't run on diesel? I think not. Microsoft has made
an effort to port many of its products to Linux. They cannot be
expected to port every product they have to every fringe OS available.
Quite frankly, there is no money in it. Many software vendors supply
their products in formats suitable for Linux. If you choose to be
'locked in' to an OS that these applications do not work on, it is your
choice, not their problem. If you want to bitch about something, then
complain to the authors of FreeBSD. They are the ones creating a system
that does not support the features you want. Or try complaining to the
open-source community. I can already tell you what their response will
be, and I quote, "patches welcome."

By the way, I have a new pc that I cannot even run FreeBSD 12.x on,
even though 11.x works. See bug:
<https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D237666>. Since an
older version works, but a newer one doesn't, it appears that someone
(FreeBSD) broke a standard. Would you like to comment on that?

I buy a screw driver, I don't expect it to drive in a nail. In your
case, you want them to give you the screw driver. In either case, do
either of us have the right to complain because it doesn't drive in a
nail? You simply acquire the right tool for the job, or "patches
welcome".

--=20
Jerry



--Sig_/EsuYl6oSu0N71vr_ZmPpBTJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEIQb/tTwl6I1ueEVtOHMGOIfexWQFAl62hQ0ACgkQOHMGOIfe
xWSrVgf8CRHQMB5Nk1QjMMvZloy9A2L9pMk+g0p0yqK3hK4nxGUtth3KAeMaTt8e
ndEU7mjOXllKvgl1nW+yQDpSdfs7rOzHwizRaxS4WpMn/Vp0hpUlP7G6stn+TkUb
k3DiWyK5fUGTZdOK1A3L0yqJg6YPd8L+4hj34igrjb51WP0cUmqFrkTYfS50wNN7
x7X6moTnrgiN1loz6+XhH1O0ZthfVU6DVYfQAgcNr9P5h1xUjrHW8zaprITX7BXu
aG6iQ24y0cKtV6lhPrZhwb0FHWq9jIE5/SVzXNuFjxH7Zi+Sk2UdVN5FB+vvvjx5
WnRCAr3mJfF1aPwXm1qpA8pfsx7Pww==
=8nI4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/EsuYl6oSu0N71vr_ZmPpBTJ--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200509062517.00002c46>