3 ms·
I think just the opposite - most of my software runs on Linux, but hardware is the main obstacle. I've installed Linux many times on desktops and laptops, and
by et1337 11y ago
I think just the opposite - most of my software runs on Linux, but hardware is the main obstacle.
I've installed Linux many times on desktops and laptops, and I have yet to simply install a graphics driver and have it work first try. My laptop locks up the cursor after two minutes of use, doesn't support two-finger touchpad scrolling, and exhibits constant graphical artifacts, all under multiple driver and kernel combinations.
Speaking as a big fan of Linux, the hardware support is abysmal, except where the money is: server hardware.
- nanny 11y agoThat used to be a problem, but I don't think it is any more. Linux "just works" on both my laptop (including sound, multitouch touchpad, wifi, and graphics, also when I'm not using it, I only ever put it to sleep by closing the lid, and I've never had a problem) and my desktop, which has an AMD graphics card (Radeon HD 7950) and an external USB audio interface (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2).
- htns 11y agoI haven't tested but I suspect there is still a distro issue - I haven't had any hardware compatibility problems on Ubuntu, but there are plenty of groanworthy desktop distro recommendations on the net.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoThe parent is correct, modern Linux supports a lot more hardware than any single Windows version. The difference is that Linux is much better at supporting old hardware, and Windows is slightly better at supporting new hardware. Try using a 20 year old non-generic printer on Windows 10, for example.
- scarmig 11y agoAs it so happens, I'm pretty sure the marginal Linux laptop installation is on a new machine. So from the universe of possible hardware installations, Linux might be superior; from the universe of actual installations in 2015, it lags well behind Windows.