On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 05:48, John Lagrue wrote: > Fred's whole article is about the lack of ease of installing > Linux with any hardware. Hiss whole thrust is that all varieties of > Windows works with his hardware, whereas Linux doesn't. Of course that > is because lack of drivers provided by the hardware manufacturers, but > that is beside the point. How is this beside the point? thats just begging the question. When was the last time any one held M$ responsible for driver problems? As an illustration: when I purchased a Linksys wireless network card with only a Wintel driver, and said driver didn't work with w2k, it wasn't M$ who published the work around, but Linksys. > The whole point being that Linux is still not > entirely ready for the home market, when compared to Micro$oft's > installations. I wont disagree with the statement that Linux isn't entirely ready for the home market. However, that doesn't sound like Mr. Langa's whole point to me. Why does he write: "I'll name names later (if you've been following along, you may know who it is anyway), but the problem I'm discussing isn't specific to one distribution--- it's far more widespread than that. So, for now, let's just say I was trying distribution "XYZ," a polished commercial Linux that seeks to go toe to toe with Microsoft Windows." 'Naming of names ' ...a Linux distribution...clearly the intention is to hold 'them' responsible for hardware compatibility issues when 'they' aren't the responsible parties. That argument is logically fallacious in at least 2 ways: 1-ignoring the common cause that many hardware vendors don't release drivers for Unix; 2-he makes a hasty generalization by lumping many[all] distributions together. > John -Craig
