|
 |
nemesis wrote:
> Linux doesn't work poorly, its developers simply don't have the
> resources to support all hardware by themselves.
It works poorly relative to Windows when it comes to supporting
different hardware. That it isn't the Linux developers' fault doesn't
make it less true. My honda works poorly compared to a pick-up truck
when I buy cinderblocks, too. :-)
In other words, reasons and excuses are two different things. True in
all walks of life.
> Windows should support, because such hardware is made for them and come
> with Windows drivers and even a seal of Windows compatibility... yeah,
> the hardware manufacturers are to blame.
Yes, in both cases. :-) Altho I'll admit making the same driver work
for 32-bit and 64-bit kernels is probably rather a PITA for a
manufacturer, and I don't imagine it works too well under Windows
either. I'll have to see when I get my 64-bit machine.
> That's the difference between Windows and Linux: one has to beg
> manufacturers do their job right, the other actively works hard to make
> unsupported hardware eventually working.
I'm sure MS goes through a lot of pain to make popular hardware continue
to work on new OSes too. They just can't always manage it for
everything, just like Linux developers can't. Of course, the HW
manufacturers are more eager to support their hardware under Windows,
for all the reasons we both know.
> On the plus side, my Olympus digital camera connects just fine to Linux
> without requiring the CD with the Windows driver...
I've never needed a driver CD for anything that worked like a HD,
including my cameras. Usually those disks are closer to ad-ware than
drivers. :-) Some of them come with cool software, tho, but you know, I
already have a photo editor and a photo organizer on my machine. I don't
need a new one with each camera. Printers, yeah, but even there, the
generic printer driver that comes with Windows usually manages at least
the basics.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
