The argument for a lack of an API was one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard, and trying to back it up with the "evolution, not intelligent design" thing is even dumber. I mean if a company tried to pull something like that they'd be crucified for it, but for some reason Linux gets praised for it.Go ahead. Mod me down, but it's just the sad truth.
Linux is only free if your time has no value..................If you posted that message over in a Linux group, they would be all over you calling you a liar despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that others have the same problems you are having.Linux just isn't ready and in reality isn't even close.When you have to carefully pick and choose your hardware just for the ability to run Linux, then Linux is not ready.And as far as Vista breaking some older hardware, yes that's true however Vista has been out a couple of months and Linux has had 10+ years to get things rolling.It hasn't been able to do it in 10 years, despite being *free* and even with Microsoft's massive screw up (AKA Vista) I doubt Linux will be able to even put a dent in Windows users desktops.IMHO Linux should give up on the desktop and concentrate on the server and embedded markets.People are just not interested in running some word guess program when they can run Rosetta Stone.
"Out of the box? Are you kidding me??"I am probably going to get hated on for being a "Linux zealot" or some such crap, but in my case it is completly true.I have 14 computer systems at my disposal for testing and I Administer another 30. Out of all of those systems I have a single wireless card and two network cards that are not picked up by Linux (funny thing is that all three use the same Broadcom driver set).Of those systems,XPsp2 will not install on 3 of them because of SATA drivers and will not install on another 2 because of the RAID drivers. I am aware of only 2 video cards which the driver set is installed and properly works with a decent resolution and refresh rate. None of the Broadcom network devices are picked up and I have about 5 other network cards which are not picked up. Sound cards rarely work and I have many problems with USB. When I must install Windows (2k3) on the rackmount systems (all identical) I spend more time getting the devices to work then I do installing Windows. Linux catches all of it.So what is the difference? In the Windows world the companies write drivers for you to install. In Linux other developers write drivers for you to install and they may not have the resources to harness the hardware properly. People just assume that they will have to install drivers under Windows and tend to forget that it didn't "just work out of the box".It has been my experiance that out of the box, Linux wins hands down. It is just that the devices that don't "work out of the box" get the most attention/frustration. In the case of Manufacturer supported drivers, Windows wins hands down but it sure didn't install the drivers "out of the box".
An excellent read, but the statement from TFA that "Linux supports more hardware _out of the box_ than any other OS" is totally misleading.Yes, its probably true that I can use more hardware without installing the manufacturers drivers, but so what ? I've spent _days_ over the last few years trying to get Linux to support various hardware. And I've spent _minutes_ doing the same tasks under windows.Yes, Linux is _much_ better now, but to imply that Linux supports more hardware than any other OS is simply delusional.
yes, it Installed kubuntu several days ago and have had zero problems with:1. the install ( even tho windon't see my drive fer som rzn)2. the network ( even tho COX say u need wimplose2000 to 'be supported')3. audio/video codecs. amarok is ok with me but i really like cmus4. setting up a hewlet packard psc 1610 ( even tho the list only showed a psc 1600 it was close enuf)5. chatting browsing and torrenting6. unZIPping and unRARring various sh*t from the windon't world.7. 2d and 3d gfx8. compiling a lil bit of the old gcc -o hellowurld hellowurld.c9. over 1500 packages installed and not a one of them complained. ( i thought fluxtorrent was hung during config but i found that i had to click 'show details' in Adept and deal with fluxtorrent's curses-bases configuration via Adept's console. so really there was no problem, just a button waiting to be clicked...)and i was sooooooo blazed....
pure bulls**t, my NetBSD supports way more hardware by default than you can even imagine. There's no madwifi or ndiswrapper needed on NetBSD, because they actually made support for it, instead of hacking it in like the linux kernel tries.
daveisferaMar 19, 2007
The argument for a lack of an API was one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard, and trying to back it up with the "evolution, not intelligent design" thing is even dumber. I mean if a company tried to pull something like that they'd be crucified for it, but for some reason Linux gets praised for it.Go ahead. Mod me down, but it's just the sad truth.
flatfishMar 19, 2007
Linux is only free if your time has no value..................If you posted that message over in a Linux group, they would be all over you calling you a liar despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that others have the same problems you are having.Linux just isn't ready and in reality isn't even close.When you have to carefully pick and choose your hardware just for the ability to run Linux, then Linux is not ready.And as far as Vista breaking some older hardware, yes that's true however Vista has been out a couple of months and Linux has had 10+ years to get things rolling.It hasn't been able to do it in 10 years, despite being *free* and even with Microsoft's massive screw up (AKA Vista) I doubt Linux will be able to even put a dent in Windows users desktops.IMHO Linux should give up on the desktop and concentrate on the server and embedded markets.People are just not interested in running some word guess program when they can run Rosetta Stone.
ilgazMar 19, 2007
Heard terms like "sarcasm" and "irony"? If you will use linux, get used to that style.
edlesmannMar 19, 2007
"Out of the box? Are you kidding me??"I am probably going to get hated on for being a "Linux zealot" or some such crap, but in my case it is completly true.I have 14 computer systems at my disposal for testing and I Administer another 30. Out of all of those systems I have a single wireless card and two network cards that are not picked up by Linux (funny thing is that all three use the same Broadcom driver set).Of those systems,XPsp2 will not install on 3 of them because of SATA drivers and will not install on another 2 because of the RAID drivers. I am aware of only 2 video cards which the driver set is installed and properly works with a decent resolution and refresh rate. None of the Broadcom network devices are picked up and I have about 5 other network cards which are not picked up. Sound cards rarely work and I have many problems with USB. When I must install Windows (2k3) on the rackmount systems (all identical) I spend more time getting the devices to work then I do installing Windows. Linux catches all of it.So what is the difference? In the Windows world the companies write drivers for you to install. In Linux other developers write drivers for you to install and they may not have the resources to harness the hardware properly. People just assume that they will have to install drivers under Windows and tend to forget that it didn't "just work out of the box".It has been my experiance that out of the box, Linux wins hands down. It is just that the devices that don't "work out of the box" get the most attention/frustration. In the case of Manufacturer supported drivers, Windows wins hands down but it sure didn't install the drivers "out of the box".
avolantMar 19, 2007
right, the people who use it. thats how open source works.
quadducMar 19, 2007
Here's one for you:<a class="user" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.png">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.png</a>
simgMar 20, 2007
An excellent read, but the statement from TFA that "Linux supports more hardware _out of the box_ than any other OS" is totally misleading.Yes, its probably true that I can use more hardware without installing the manufacturers drivers, but so what ? I've spent _days_ over the last few years trying to get Linux to support various hardware. And I've spent _minutes_ doing the same tasks under windows.Yes, Linux is _much_ better now, but to imply that Linux supports more hardware than any other OS is simply delusional.
sshhaammssMar 20, 2007
yes, it Installed kubuntu several days ago and have had zero problems with:1. the install ( even tho windon't see my drive fer som rzn)2. the network ( even tho COX say u need wimplose2000 to 'be supported')3. audio/video codecs. amarok is ok with me but i really like cmus4. setting up a hewlet packard psc 1610 ( even tho the list only showed a psc 1600 it was close enuf)5. chatting browsing and torrenting6. unZIPping and unRARring various sh*t from the windon't world.7. 2d and 3d gfx8. compiling a lil bit of the old gcc -o hellowurld hellowurld.c9. over 1500 packages installed and not a one of them complained. ( i thought fluxtorrent was hung during config but i found that i had to click 'show details' in Adept and deal with fluxtorrent's curses-bases configuration via Adept's console. so really there was no problem, just a button waiting to be clicked...)and i was sooooooo blazed....
Closed AccountMar 22, 2007
pure bulls**t, my NetBSD supports way more hardware by default than you can even imagine. There's no madwifi or ndiswrapper needed on NetBSD, because they actually made support for it, instead of hacking it in like the linux kernel tries.