Jayce
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,056
- Location
- /home/jason
Misreading your point? I got your point. That's why I mentioned the driver issue. I was building on top of what you already said, man. It works for/against both Windows and Linux. The driver vendors are ultimately to blame for lack of hardware support. I'm not blaming Vista for my Turtle Beach card not working in Vista 64 bit, but I'm also not blaming Linux for not supporting a certain Broadcom wifi card that you had issues with. 
Ironically enough, you know how I mentioned the other night I installed Ubuntu on 3 computers, 2 were laptops and only 1 I had to activate the wireless card? You guessed it. Broadcom. I never said the wifi was perfect in Linux, in fact wifi is the one area that Linux has had to play a tremendous game of catch-up on. But despite them not being 100%, they have come a tremendous way.
Kernels - Suggest I stop there? I'm not 9 years old here, brother. But let's talk about kernels briefly, despite your "just don't bother" card you tried to play. There's a reason multiple kernels exist, which only expands on hardware support and functionality. To this date I have yet to put a secondary kernel to use. The most recent kernel has always been a home run for me. But there are differences between kernels that may enable some users to work while causing conflicts for others. This may not be completely on the dead-center topic, but it's still an example. I use FOG - open source imaging that's built on top of either Fedora or Ubuntu. FOG uses kernels to load the modules for computers to be imaged. There is 1 computer that is known to be problematic, with FOG, Ghost, and other open source + proprietary imaging solutions. But, FOG has multiple kernels... and there are 2 kernels noted as working with this computer whereas the main kernel does not. That is the only instance where I've had to use a secondary kernel to get things working, and even at that knowing it's problematic with other platforms makes you think there's something very strange about that particular computer.
And about your netbook argument, you have to understand that a large part of the reason behind the Windows switch to netbooks is due to the customers themselves. The linux netbooks did not do bad. In fact, they did quite well - in terms of functioning. But the thing is, there's a lot of people who simply crap their pants if they don't have their start button. Linux is not Windows. Linux is a different world. There's a lot of people who simply don't have the patience to acknowledge that another platform exists. For example, did you hear about that girl who bought an Ubuntu Dell laptop and couldn't figure out why her DSL CD didn't work in it? It clearly said on the screen that Ubuntu that there was a problem launching the .exe - because an .exe is Windows only. Right there is an example of why Windows controls as much as they do - because people are FAMILIAR with it. It's their comfort zone. Windows has left such a substantial footprint in the industry that most people just stick to what they know. Using that and stretching it to "well that just means Windows works better" isn't a valid argument. Sure, maybe Windows does do something better for certain users than Linux could - but to broaden that to the general consensus of "that's why they're using Windows now!" is a severe stretch.
And I would hardly say that Ubuntu has poor desktop support. Look at how much they support. Linux supports more hardware out of box than Windows - yes, it's true. You may not have had that exact experience, and I'm not saying everybody will, but I remember reading from a few different sources that Linux does indeed support more hardware by nature than Windows does. Of course you can add drivers to both Linux and Windows too, so I'm not sure where the argument would end up beyond that, but since you seem to stress Windows "ease of use" with supporting stuff out of the box, I just had to make that known.
There are countless other things that we can argue both for/against Windows and for/against Linux. But Linux has gained a tremendous amount of community and commercial support in a short time. I can't imagine it slowing down by any means for quite a while. I think ultimately, considering there are paid-support alternatives for Ubuntu machines, that some places may be starting to convert knowing that they still have that 1-800 number to call if something hits the fan.
A college recently migrated all Windows machines to Ubuntu near me in Pennsylvania. How do I know this? My buddy's uncle is one of the Ubuntu instructors there. That's not saying Windows will die. My gosh Windows is an empire that'll live for a dozen more centuries. But nonetheless, to ignore Linux's accomplishments is just naive.
Ironically enough, you know how I mentioned the other night I installed Ubuntu on 3 computers, 2 were laptops and only 1 I had to activate the wireless card? You guessed it. Broadcom. I never said the wifi was perfect in Linux, in fact wifi is the one area that Linux has had to play a tremendous game of catch-up on. But despite them not being 100%, they have come a tremendous way.
Kernels - Suggest I stop there? I'm not 9 years old here, brother. But let's talk about kernels briefly, despite your "just don't bother" card you tried to play. There's a reason multiple kernels exist, which only expands on hardware support and functionality. To this date I have yet to put a secondary kernel to use. The most recent kernel has always been a home run for me. But there are differences between kernels that may enable some users to work while causing conflicts for others. This may not be completely on the dead-center topic, but it's still an example. I use FOG - open source imaging that's built on top of either Fedora or Ubuntu. FOG uses kernels to load the modules for computers to be imaged. There is 1 computer that is known to be problematic, with FOG, Ghost, and other open source + proprietary imaging solutions. But, FOG has multiple kernels... and there are 2 kernels noted as working with this computer whereas the main kernel does not. That is the only instance where I've had to use a secondary kernel to get things working, and even at that knowing it's problematic with other platforms makes you think there's something very strange about that particular computer.
And about your netbook argument, you have to understand that a large part of the reason behind the Windows switch to netbooks is due to the customers themselves. The linux netbooks did not do bad. In fact, they did quite well - in terms of functioning. But the thing is, there's a lot of people who simply crap their pants if they don't have their start button. Linux is not Windows. Linux is a different world. There's a lot of people who simply don't have the patience to acknowledge that another platform exists. For example, did you hear about that girl who bought an Ubuntu Dell laptop and couldn't figure out why her DSL CD didn't work in it? It clearly said on the screen that Ubuntu that there was a problem launching the .exe - because an .exe is Windows only. Right there is an example of why Windows controls as much as they do - because people are FAMILIAR with it. It's their comfort zone. Windows has left such a substantial footprint in the industry that most people just stick to what they know. Using that and stretching it to "well that just means Windows works better" isn't a valid argument. Sure, maybe Windows does do something better for certain users than Linux could - but to broaden that to the general consensus of "that's why they're using Windows now!" is a severe stretch.
And I would hardly say that Ubuntu has poor desktop support. Look at how much they support. Linux supports more hardware out of box than Windows - yes, it's true. You may not have had that exact experience, and I'm not saying everybody will, but I remember reading from a few different sources that Linux does indeed support more hardware by nature than Windows does. Of course you can add drivers to both Linux and Windows too, so I'm not sure where the argument would end up beyond that, but since you seem to stress Windows "ease of use" with supporting stuff out of the box, I just had to make that known.
There are countless other things that we can argue both for/against Windows and for/against Linux. But Linux has gained a tremendous amount of community and commercial support in a short time. I can't imagine it slowing down by any means for quite a while. I think ultimately, considering there are paid-support alternatives for Ubuntu machines, that some places may be starting to convert knowing that they still have that 1-800 number to call if something hits the fan.
A college recently migrated all Windows machines to Ubuntu near me in Pennsylvania. How do I know this? My buddy's uncle is one of the Ubuntu instructors there. That's not saying Windows will die. My gosh Windows is an empire that'll live for a dozen more centuries. But nonetheless, to ignore Linux's accomplishments is just naive.
