4 ms·

Linux is already winning the OS wars, it's called Android ;-) Just being snarky, I get your point. I've said this before, and I think it is important to keep in

by glesica 13y ago

Linux is already winning the OS wars, it's called Android ;-) Just being snarky, I get your point. I've said this before, and I think it is important to keep in mind when discussing GNU/Linux: things work quite well... on supported hardware. The vast majority of tales of woe related to GNU/Linux and hardware end up coming down to incompatible hardware. This is a communication problem, not a technical problem. No one gets upset that OS X won't run on a random Acer netbook from 4 years ago because Apple has made clear that their OS is only supposed to work on their hardware. GNU/Linux evangelists, on the other hand, have, in the past especially, had a tendency to sell their operating system as magical software that works on every machine always. This is, of course, totally false. When I buy a laptop I check several sources (including the Ubuntu Certified list) to make sure the machine I end up with will be fully supported, preferably with open drivers.

npsimons 13y ago
GNU/Linux evangelists, on the other hand, have, in the past especially, had a tendency to sell their operating system as magical software that works on every machine always. This is, of course, totally false. It's not totally false; Linux will work on almost everything, most of the time. While I'll second the notion that you should really, really, really, really make sure that your hardware is supported before you buy the hardware, I think I can safely say that the range of driver support in the Linux kernel is unparalleled. The only other OS that even competes (and for that, only CPU architectures) is NetBSD. In my experience, if Linux doesn't support a piece of hardware out of the box, you had better dump that hardware, because brother, that hardware won't be supported by anything.
- fest 13y ago
  > In my experience, if Linux doesn't support a piece of hardware out of the box, > you had better dump that hardware, because brother, that hardware won't > be supported by anything. In my experience, the hardware support/drivers, esp. video and wireless, is better in wintel front. Sure, linux versions of those drivers usually give more power to user regarding configuration of device, but brother, I have never had to fiddle with driver configuration to get HW acceleration working for flash in windows. Just download and install video adapter drivers, install flashplayer, and it just works.
- takluyver 13y ago
  I think the distinction is that Linux can be made to work on almost anything - if you're willing to hunt through forums, edit config files, and on rare occasions compile a driver. And it might give you trouble, say, suspending and resuming. I doubt Windows is much better on a technical level, but then OEMs deal with choosing hardware and selecting drivers, so end users don't have to.
- glesica 13y ago
  > It's not totally false; Linux will work on almost everything, most of the time. For certain definitions of the word "work" :-). Much of the reputation GNU/Linux has for being wonky and difficult to use comes not from alpha hacker types, their systems work just fine, but from relatively ordinary people with work to do who were talked into installing "Linux" to escape malware, get access to more free software, speed up an old computer, etc. For these people, editing xorg.conf is an unacceptable pre-condition to using a computer. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not (IMHO).

by glesica 13y ago

npsimons 13y ago

GNU/Linux evangelists, on the other hand, have, in the past especially, had a tendency to sell their operating system as magical software that works on every machine always. This is, of course, totally false. It's not totally false; Linux will work on almost everything, most of the time. While I'll second the notion that you should really, really, really, really make sure that your hardware is supported before you buy the hardware, I think I can safely say that the range of driver support in the Linux kernel is unparalleled. The only other OS that even competes (and for that, only CPU architectures) is NetBSD. In my experience, if Linux doesn't support a piece of hardware out of the box, you had better dump that hardware, because brother, that hardware won't be supported by anything.

fest 13y ago
> In my experience, if Linux doesn't support a piece of hardware out of the box, > you had better dump that hardware, because brother, that hardware won't > be supported by anything. In my experience, the hardware support/drivers, esp. video and wireless, is better in wintel front. Sure, linux versions of those drivers usually give more power to user regarding configuration of device, but brother, I have never had to fiddle with driver configuration to get HW acceleration working for flash in windows. Just download and install video adapter drivers, install flashplayer, and it just works.
takluyver 13y ago
I think the distinction is that Linux can be made to work on almost anything - if you're willing to hunt through forums, edit config files, and on rare occasions compile a driver. And it might give you trouble, say, suspending and resuming. I doubt Windows is much better on a technical level, but then OEMs deal with choosing hardware and selecting drivers, so end users don't have to.
glesica 13y ago
> It's not totally false; Linux will work on almost everything, most of the time. For certain definitions of the word "work" :-). Much of the reputation GNU/Linux has for being wonky and difficult to use comes not from alpha hacker types, their systems work just fine, but from relatively ordinary people with work to do who were talked into installing "Linux" to escape malware, get access to more free software, speed up an old computer, etc. For these people, editing xorg.conf is an unacceptable pre-condition to using a computer. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not (IMHO).