Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Oct 2007 15:34 UTC, submitted by te_lanus
Thread beginning with comment 276291
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
The way we do things is both an advantage and a disadvantage. If you upgrade a piece of your hardware, expect that you might have to upgrade your OS to get it to work. Or *wait* 6 months or so for the next version to be released. Or run the alpha or beta.
In a lot of ways, the "load a driver" method that Windows uses makes more sense. Personally, I don't allow Windows into my home. But their driver distribution model makes a hell of a lot more sense than the crazy way that we have to do things. If we had the required vendor following, we'd do it just like they do:
Include as much driver support as we can by default, and count upon the overwhelming incentive that vendors have to support our OS to handle the rest.
It's a nearly unbeatable combo.
Edited 2007-10-05 05:49