Linked by David Adams on Thu 29th Sep 2011 23:47 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Permalink for comment 491711
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Get real. Who exactly are you trying to kid?
Firstly, if one were to do for Linux the same as one did for Windows, and buy it pre-installed on a machine designed to run it, then Linux too would "just work". It would "just work" very well indeed, and unlike Windows it would continue to work very well. It would not get slower with time, and it would be quite unlikely to ever get compromised by malware.
For self-installed Linux, one puts in a LiveCD, and on 95% of machines it will indeed "just work". Of the existing machines out there today, a current desktop Linux distribution tailored for that class of machine will "just work" far more often than any current version of Windows. These are machines designed for Windows, mind you. Linux is far, far easier to self-install and get to a satisfactory working state than Windows is.
Linux has more working drivers for more hardware than any other OS on the planet, by quite a long way. Linux runs on more hardware than any other OS.
The ball is back in your court.
Edited 2011-10-03 22:18 UTC