Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 13th May 2009 01:18 UTC
Benchmarks Phoronix, known for their various speed tests and reviews, compared the latest in Ubuntu and what, until recently, used to be the lastest in Mac OS X with 29 different benchmarking tests. Some of the results were rather interesting.
Thread beginning with comment 363242
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

This whole issue has nothing to do with having an open source kernel or gtk vs. cocoa or whatever.

It has everything to do with market share. Linux will get great desktop hardware support (3d graphics, wireless, acpi) when it has decent desktop market share. Look at the server market right now. You don't have to buy a server that's supported in linux. Every server product is well supported in linux. A manufacturer that put out a server product that wasn't supported in linux would be laughed at. All of that is because linux is installed on a good portion of servers.


There is a lot of misinformation being spread right now about Linux having only a small market share. They are actually talking ONLY about the desktop market.

If we are talking about the entire market wherein the devices you mentioned (3d graphics, wireless, acpi) are used, Linux would have a very decent market share of that entire market. Perhaps 20% or so.

http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/04/windows-owns-96.html
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=151
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3818696/Linux-Des...

The ONLY viable reason why a device maker would refuse to support Linux would be if they had been paid not to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

The ONLY viable reason why a device maker would refuse to support Linux would be if they had been paid not to.

Yup, that has do be it. It's a big dark conspiracy.

The idea that a company might actuallty sit down and work out the number of extra sales they'll get by supporting linux vs. the cost of supporting linux and come to the conclusion that supporting linux doesn't make finanical sense is preposterous. It has to be Microsoft I tell you, they are EVIL!!!!

Reply Parent Score: 4

DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

"The ONLY viable reason why a device maker would refuse to support Linux would be if they had been paid not to.

Yup, that has do be it. It's a big dark conspiracy.

The idea that a company might actuallty sit down and work out the number of extra sales they'll get by supporting linux vs. the cost of supporting linux and come to the conclusion that supporting linux doesn't make finanical sense is preposterous. It has to be Microsoft I tell you, they are EVIL!!!!
"

HA HA HA! I cannot believe how people think these days.

Developing software is a very expensive task. And developing drivers is even more expensive.

Particularly, what Linux has achieved on the desktop with almost no commercial support is admirable, but thinking someone is paying Linux programmers not to develop is really funny.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

The ONLY viable reason why a device maker would refuse to support Linux would be if they had been paid not to.


Well, I must say you are at least consistant in your ability to show you have absolutely zero clue to how a business, corporations, economies, markets, or even the world works. But then again things like facts and truth are really just an obsicle for blind fanboys like you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

Who cares about market share? If something works, good for it. Use it, or not, who cares?

The ONLY viable reason why a device maker would refuse to support Linux would be if they had been paid not to.


Or if they're stubborn, lazy, or clueless. (Note that I don't mean to be insulting/condescending there, I consider myself all of those, heh.) It's not easy supporting everything.

Reply Parent Score: 1