3 ms·

Same history here. I did actually use Linux for quite a while but ultimately gave up because Linux just isn't good at the one job only an operating system can d

Same history here. I did actually use Linux for quite a while but ultimately gave up because Linux just isn't good at the one job only an operating system can do, which is to make the hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner. I just got tired of fixing sound issues, trying to make a scanner work or investigating CPU states to fix heat and battery draining issues on yet another laptop. Ultimately, I think, all of this is a result of the unresolved issue of who should write and test device drivers. It doesn't help that I disagree profoundly with the prevailing package management philosophy of Linux distributions, but that is a comparably superficial problem that can be worked around.

vacri 11y ago
> Linux just isn't good at the one job only an operating system can do, which is to make the hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner. It's not the best desktop environment out there, but apart from desktop, linux is the most popular system at every step from small embedded systems to the most powerful supercomputers. That wouldn't be the case if it couldn't make hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  It's not the most popular system on phones, unless you are using "Linux" in the correct sense to mean the kernel. But I believe GP was using it in the colloquial sense to mean GNU/Linux, since this thread isn't really about the Linux kernel, but the ""Linux"" userland. Android certainly doesn't have the userland that is typically (incorrectly) called Linux.
  - vacri 11y ago
    The parent was specifically talking about making hardware available for use. That's kernel stuff, not GNU userland. But if you want to talk about userland, then you need to buy supported equipment. OSX doesn't work with a ton of equipment out there - as that equipment does not come with OSX drivers. Windows also works like shit when it doesn't have the drivers - anyone who has had to install XP regularly will quite happily attest to just how terrible it is at supporting network cards before you install drivers. Then, of course, there's the bonus of the AMD Catalyst driver installer program for windows: at least as recently as win7, if you didn't have drivers for video, it fell back to VGA graphics. The Catalyst driver installer was too large to be seen on VGA - you couldn't see the bottom of the installer window to see what was going on, and couldn't drag the window high enough without a hard-to-discover key chord. :) The argument to "buy stuff your operating system supports" sounds like a cop-out, but it really isn't. OSX, for example, is difficult to make run on things other than Apple-designed computers, but if you complained about it, people would write you off as an idiot.
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  I was speaking in the context of the question I was replying to, which was "why would you not just go with a Linux desktop for that?" More specifically, it's the state of Linux device drivers and integration testing for laptops and consumer peripherals I'm complaining about. That's not a result of any inherent deficiency of the Linux kernel or its design. It's ultimately an economics issue.
viraptor 11y ago
That's anecdata. Of course it can work the other way too. I've got a printer/scanner which "just works" with Linux. On Windows however they need crazy, proprietary driver/application which always lives in the traybar and tries hard to take over native windows settings.
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  >That's anecdata Sure, that's what this whole thread is about. But I'm afraid that there is causality involved that we know about without collecting any sample data at all. Developers of Linux device drivers for consumer devices quite often do not have access to all the hardware and information they need. And hardware makers quite often do not make high quality Linux device drivers for their consumer devices. For most consumer laptops, the vendor will not do integration testing to make sure everything works well together on Linux. I don't think the right response to that is to deny that the average laptop or peripheral will work better with Windows. The right response is to make it clear that you have to make very deliberate hardware choices if you plan to use Linux and accept that much of the hardware you can use is always going to be slightly dated. And that is in fact what many Linux advocates are saying. Choosing a Mac also restricts your hardware choices quite dramatically after all, so if a broad selection of hardware is your goal, Windows is the only game in town.

vacri 11y ago

> Linux just isn't good at the one job only an operating system can do, which is to make the hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner. It's not the best desktop environment out there, but apart from desktop, linux is the most popular system at every step from small embedded systems to the most powerful supercomputers. That wouldn't be the case if it couldn't make hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner.

umanwizard 11y ago
It's not the most popular system on phones, unless you are using "Linux" in the correct sense to mean the kernel. But I believe GP was using it in the colloquial sense to mean GNU/Linux, since this thread isn't really about the Linux kernel, but the ""Linux"" userland. Android certainly doesn't have the userland that is typically (incorrectly) called Linux.
- vacri 11y ago
  The parent was specifically talking about making hardware available for use. That's kernel stuff, not GNU userland. But if you want to talk about userland, then you need to buy supported equipment. OSX doesn't work with a ton of equipment out there - as that equipment does not come with OSX drivers. Windows also works like shit when it doesn't have the drivers - anyone who has had to install XP regularly will quite happily attest to just how terrible it is at supporting network cards before you install drivers. Then, of course, there's the bonus of the AMD Catalyst driver installer program for windows: at least as recently as win7, if you didn't have drivers for video, it fell back to VGA graphics. The Catalyst driver installer was too large to be seen on VGA - you couldn't see the bottom of the installer window to see what was going on, and couldn't drag the window high enough without a hard-to-discover key chord. :) The argument to "buy stuff your operating system supports" sounds like a cop-out, but it really isn't. OSX, for example, is difficult to make run on things other than Apple-designed computers, but if you complained about it, people would write you off as an idiot.
fauigerzigerk 11y ago
I was speaking in the context of the question I was replying to, which was "why would you not just go with a Linux desktop for that?" More specifically, it's the state of Linux device drivers and integration testing for laptops and consumer peripherals I'm complaining about. That's not a result of any inherent deficiency of the Linux kernel or its design. It's ultimately an economics issue.

viraptor 11y ago

That's anecdata. Of course it can work the other way too. I've got a printer/scanner which "just works" with Linux. On Windows however they need crazy, proprietary driver/application which always lives in the traybar and tries hard to take over native windows settings.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago
>That's anecdata Sure, that's what this whole thread is about. But I'm afraid that there is causality involved that we know about without collecting any sample data at all. Developers of Linux device drivers for consumer devices quite often do not have access to all the hardware and information they need. And hardware makers quite often do not make high quality Linux device drivers for their consumer devices. For most consumer laptops, the vendor will not do integration testing to make sure everything works well together on Linux. I don't think the right response to that is to deny that the average laptop or peripheral will work better with Windows. The right response is to make it clear that you have to make very deliberate hardware choices if you plan to use Linux and accept that much of the hardware you can use is always going to be slightly dated. And that is in fact what many Linux advocates are saying. Choosing a Mac also restricts your hardware choices quite dramatically after all, so if a broad selection of hardware is your goal, Windows is the only game in town.