To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Which brings me to my point: it's about user expectations, not hardware support.
Mac user's don't expect their Mac to support every periphereal under the sun, so why should Linux users expect the same? I surmise that actual Linux users don't actually, that point of view is one that is usually espoused by Windows users when giving reasons for why they won't switch to Linux. Which, for what it's worth, I consider to be a perfectly valid reason.
It's not a lack of hardware support which holding back Linux on the desktop, but the expectation of some potential users that Linux be a seemless drop in replacement for Windows.
It's not a lack of hardware support which holding back Linux on the desktop, but the expectation of some potential users that Linux be a seemless drop in replacement for Windows.
And where does the blame lie?
Linux hardware support is good, I won't argue that. But this is a roadblock that is hurting it. It could gain a leg on Microsoft if the leaders weren't so adament about everything being "pure" and "Free".





Member since:
2005-07-06
And OS X is inteded to run on a lot less hardware than Linux. It supports exactly what users need to run it. There's a huge difference.