3 ms·

The article calls out people for putting down Linux device support, and then adds this lovely disclaimer: "If you use Linux and like to advocate for its use, i

The article calls out people for putting down Linux device support, and then adds this lovely disclaimer: "If you use Linux and like to advocate for its use, it’s time to stop telling people they should try it and it’ll Just Work. Because it won’t. It’ll probably Mostly Work. And the remaining 5% of not-workiness will cause yet another person to start propagating the “Linux has bad hardware support” meme." I'm sorry, but if 5% of devices don't just work, then you have no place writing this article, and you've just discovered exactly why that "Linux has no hardware support" meme exists. "But make sure they know that for best experience, they will have to research and choose a known-good configuration. Just like they did when picking out their shiny Mac." In other words, you have to do more work to get it to work. In other words, it does not "just work." In other words, Linux does not have better hardware support than OSX, OSX just has better hardware. Don't you get it? That's exactly why people buy Macs: so they don't have to think about that. Start a company that makes preconfigured Linux desktops that "just work" if you want, but don't go decrying a whole platform for having it all figured out. If you're saying it's better "if only people would just do their research" then you really don't get it.

nkorth 13y ago
> In other words, you have to do more work to get it to work. Last I checked, making a Hackintosh was a lot of work (when it's even possible). And that's what happens when installing OS X on 95% of hardware.
- calinet6 13y ago
  That's why you don't make Hackintoshes. :) You could say we're comparing Apples and Oranges here. It's not even worth the comparison. Mac is a better experience because it's integrated, but it will never have generic hardware support. Linux has open, generic support for a lot of hardware, but it will never "just work." Pick one.
trebor 13y ago
This was one of the reasons why I did not switch to Linux, but switched to OS X. The factor of "just buy it and it works" is really appealing, especially from my Windows system-builder past. (I reinstalled Windows XP 6x in about a month to find what I was installing that broke OLE, and totally broke my only school computer's ability to launch word processors.) But then again, OS X has good hardware support because it only supports the kind of hardware that Apple sells. They can afford to do the work to fully support each piece of hardware they add, rather than the full breadth of the computer spectrum.

nkorth 13y ago

> In other words, you have to do more work to get it to work. Last I checked, making a Hackintosh was a lot of work (when it's even possible). And that's what happens when installing OS X on 95% of hardware.

calinet6 13y ago
That's why you don't make Hackintoshes. :) You could say we're comparing Apples and Oranges here. It's not even worth the comparison. Mac is a better experience because it's integrated, but it will never have generic hardware support. Linux has open, generic support for a lot of hardware, but it will never "just work." Pick one.

trebor 13y ago

This was one of the reasons why I did not switch to Linux, but switched to OS X. The factor of "just buy it and it works" is really appealing, especially from my Windows system-builder past. (I reinstalled Windows XP 6x in about a month to find what I was installing that broke OLE, and totally broke my only school computer's ability to launch word processors.) But then again, OS X has good hardware support because it only supports the kind of hardware that Apple sells. They can afford to do the work to fully support each piece of hardware they add, rather than the full breadth of the computer spectrum.