Scott Leighton wrote:
He needs to start with the context that hardware is only difficult to address because hardware manufacturers release inadequately complete driver sets. Why, he's talking about his experience with a Linux distribution versus Windows. What makes you think that he is obligated to explain his experience in terms of what hardware mfgs choose to do or not do.
He is pretending to offer an evenhanded comparison yet fails to note that XP only loads cleanly on hardware selected for compatibilty with XP but whines that Linux doesn't load cleanly on hardware not selected for it. The comparison lacks integrity.
He needs to observe that even when hardware manufacturers market defective devices (e.g. winmodems) Linux folks have been able work around some of that junk and force functionality. Ditto. He's a user, a user could care less about the politics of whether or not manufacturers choose to support any particular OS. A user simply cares about whether or not the box 'works'.
The XP box 'works' only because it uses XP-compatible hardware. The Linux box 'works' just as easily on Linux-compatible hardware. The most important difference is that when confronted with less-than-optimally-compatible hardware the Linux user has a prayer of getting it to work, the XP-turnkey-user is often out of luck and without a prayer.
He also needs to observe that a pattern of Microsoft manipulation has long-since been documented wherein they have pressured hardware manufacturers to refuse to release sufficient data to allow Linux folks to do what they (the manuafacturer) should -- package Linux drivers along with MS and Mac drivers. That crap is nothing but excuses. A user cares nothing about it and frankly is sounds like whining to me.
Give me similar influence over the available hardware driver pool for a year and I will bankrupt Microsoft -- facts are not whining.
He needs to note that SuSE 9 and 9.1 and Mandrake 10 and other newer distros load and run with similar levels of ease to XP -- but that just as with XP one must choose approved hardware -- because XP will not run on any hardware anywhere anytime -- though there are far more companies configuring their PC's to favor XP compatibility than those doing so for Linux -- the advantage of M$'s current superior user-base position in the marketplace. You are flat out wrong. There is no similarity in ease of use between Linux distros and XP. XP wins hands down. You have an agenda you want to push, the author doesn't.
Since I have used various flavors of DOS, Windows, Apple, Vax VMS, Linux, and BSD -- some of them likely before the author was off baby food I am more qualified than he to make the comparison, not less. That said there is no honest comparison of XP to Suse 9 or 9.1 anywhere -- on equally compatible hardware -- that does not find Suse the equal (and in many ways better) than XP -- in loading and operation. This doesn't even begin to address the vast superiority of Suse in security, stability, cost, and flexibility. If one is to claim a comparison one must do so using standards with technological integrity, something the author failed miserably to do, thus my critique -- one which stands ineffectually challenged on the facts. -- Blessings ... dmc West Central Florida ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This E-mail was generated using SuSE 9.0 Linux & Mozilla. This PC is free of all Microsoft products. Visit: www.suse.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~