I'd like to say that it's just my luck, but there's been maybe 2/3's out a dozen different comps that I've installed Linux on that dont support/configure one major item.
The cheaper the hardware, the more likely this is an issue.
Especially in the wireless LAN space where the FCC says you cannot openly release specifications to program radio frequencies.
This has been their attitude ever since Mathews wrote the original Intersil PRISM driver and people were driving it well outside of the public 2.4GHz spectrum.
That's why there are "binary-only" components, which is an issue when it comes to kernel license redistribution, which Red Hat, Debian, etc... won't distribute.
And don't get me started on the IP mindfield known as 3D, even Intel doesn't release OpenGL/3D drivers with full capabilities (again, don't get me started).
Licensing and IP is very much an issue in the Linux world, and the consumer often suffers in the end.
NIC not supported, sound doesnt work, RAID issues...
Well, considering 100% of the RAID that comes on mainboards is fake and 100% software driver, yes.
Modems are the same, etc...
Now there have been some vendors opening up specifications.
E.g., the Intel ICH5+ and nVidia MCP4+ Fake RAID controllers are now supported by Linux's DeviceMapper
(which is an outstanding component of the kernel, especially for enterprise storage).
But for more "consumer" aspects, like cheap modems and horribly designed NICs, no, and there won't likely be any support in the near future.
The only "good news" about Linux hardware support is once 1 or 2 major models of the same device have drivers written,
those drivers tend to work for everything, and they are eternal.
I don't know how many times I've had different vendor's card with the exact same chipset or ASIC, but one vendor's Windows driver won't work for the other.
That's extremely frustrating in Windows, especially on server-quality hardware, let alone older consumer hardware.
I didn't think you were nitpicking.
It's the reality of installation.
Which is why I either recommend you either get Linux pre-installed or, if you self-assemble, check for Linux support first.
But I thought it best to throw in all sides of an OS change.
And if you've seen one repeat theme here from me, it's that I highly recommend sticking with Windows in a majority of cases.
I switched long ago, but I am a professional in a field where Linux was used very, very early.
It's not as horrendous as the old days when I had to jumble IRQ's, ports and memory to get something working..
Well, that was an issue for Windows too.
E.g., Linux's PCMCIA support in 1994 was better and more "plug'n play" than NT 3.1/3.5 and Windows 3.11 before Windows 95.
Here's a key point:
When a standard is open and fully implemented, Linux typically implements it much better.
E.g., True hardware PCI devices, PCMCIA/CardBus, FireWire, etc...
When a standard is vendor or leaves a lot to individual devices, Linux typically can't implement it well, if at all, unless vendors cooperate.
E.g., Software-driven PCI devices (generic DSP-based), USB, etc...
but like you said, the FREEDOM comes with that option.
If you want, you can modify the whole OS, recode this package, that kernel.. this software.. :sigh: It's complex. But not complicated.
Actually, I haven't compiled a desktop or server Linux kernel since 1999
(only for embedded Linux, but I also rebuild kernels for embedded Windows too).
In reality, most distros today will give you everything you need to work, assuming you can move to the open document formats.
Even Red Hat has built a serious number of packages in Fedora Extras (although that doesn't address it's SLA-driven Enterprise line, which is another story).
"oh, it's like DOS" bullshit
That statement used to hold a 'hint' of merit in years past.
Command lines, telling the system what you want it to do..
My first Linux was in 1993, Yggdrasil, and it had a 100% GUI installer.
I came to Linux because I wanted a cheap X11 GUI desktop, and Linux delivered.
Hell, I used to run Feeble WM and even the 95-like version shortly after 95 first came out.
But yes, the GUI "frameworks" didn't come around for another 5 years.
UNIX takes the opposite approach from Windows, stablize the capability, make it usable without a GUI, then add the GUI.
Windows takes the approach build the GUI, then actually implement the capability, and (in many cases) try to stablize the capability.
For consumers, that's not really as much of an issue, but for workstations and servers that run 24x7, Windows is a PITA.
Always has been, and NT has gotten much worse than it used to be (don't get me started).
if you wanted to summarize any text based UI, that's a good start.
You type, it interprets.. its like DOS at first glance.
But with power, more commands, and once again, it takes a good month to learn your way around a new OS.
I mean a GOOD month.
I would argue 6 months.
Even if you get down the "usability" in 1-2 months, it's another 3-4 months of application familiarity.
Not just an idle, search around the directories.. see what-does-what kinda month but some real hands-on experimentation with it all. Learn about privileges, user levels.. blah blah, you know the deal but explaining it to somene is next to useless.
In one ear, out the rear. Somebody has to get into it themselves.
Exactomundo.
That point cant be stressed enough. People want free.
But people expect user-friendly. Not friendly-users. Which is about the most help you'll get with *nix.
You cant call up comcast or dell and ask them how to config their modem thru a *nix install.
Actually, you can, and they
do have Linux tech support at virtually every major provider.
But they "downplay" that support for consumers, you have to be a business customer to get it.
Back in 2000,
Gartner did a study of the cost of Linux support versus Windows, even for desktops, and it was identical.
When it came to the top 12 IT service firms, only IBM (out of all 12) charged more for Linux services.
IBM has since changed their stance on supporting Linux since 2001, and the costs for Linux support is often less than what they offer for Windows.
There's no magic phone number you can call that'll tell you what you want to hear. (Customer is always right? BS)
That's more policy than anything, again, if you're a business customer, they have Linux people on-staff for you.
Ehh, I suppose it's a combination of fear, rebellion and money.
At least back in my youth we used macs all the time. Apple 2's and the like. The rare 2- or 386 that some friend's dad bought wasnt so prevalent as an Apple comp laying around.
I grew up with a PC from day 1.
I had some '70s-era toys, but once the PC came out, I had a PC.
I started running UNIX on non-PCs, but also PCs by the late '80s.
Then again, I was maintaining Internet servers over 5 years before the web hit.
But there's some weird grey area where people hate Apple, hate Microsoft.. but they wont stop using windows.
But.. linux? BSD? Red Hat? What are all these brands, how do I use it?
Where can I... I'm tired, I'll try something new next year kind of a feeling I get from everyday users, gamers and the like.
I find that people who "hate" an OS will be just as ready to "hate" the next OS they use.
People need to appreciate what works for them and -- better yet -- just pay for it if it "does the job."
People who use Linux -- really use it -- don't use it because it's "free," it's "freedom."
And that's not because it's "not Microsoft," but because it is written by and for the people who use it.
In fact, they only people that "go back to Windows" are the ones who assumed Linux is a Windows replacement.
All I have to say is this to everyone: Time passes whether you want it to or not.
You might as well do something useful in the meantime. Learn Linux. A second language. Get a degree.
All semi-useful things to do instead of sitting around and watching the latest forgettable flicks and flossing your cock.
I'm an engineer, and that means I'm lazy.
I learned Linux because it made me more productive for my job and environment, largely because we had already adopted GNU systems.
And that was not merely for Internet servers, but for backend servers, engineering workstations, etc...
It's the main experience and reason (long with NT) that a prime NASA contractor plucked me fresh out of college.
That was 1995, well before anyone had heard of Linux.
Aye, and there's no time like the present to get people acquainted with ugly GUI's..
security and stability they'd love but never understand..and hey, a cute lil penguin. "Can I click him?!"
Who says Linux has "ugly GUIs"? Huh?
Skins, transparency, framebuffer-accelerated desktops and countless other GUI widgets, capabilities and feature were
invented on UNIX, particularly Linux in the last 10 years.
Hell, I'm typing this on Fedora Core 6 x86-64 (true 64-bit) running GNOME with the Compiz Windows Manager using AIGLX rendering c/o nVidia's driver.
Compiz is not perfect (they haven't put all the shortcuts and other features in like the regular 2D window managers),
but it's surely far less of a pig, far more capable and far better looking (IMHO) than Aero using that pathetic WGF 1.1 base.
Especially that WGF 1.1 base, as the whole, original WGF (now "2.0") has become vaporware.
