On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:55:26 -0400 Craig Thomas <cjtinhp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. It's beside the point because all that matters is the end result. There are a lot of factors that make up a "Linux experience" for a user. > > 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 Yes, you're right to agree. And you're agreeing with the main thrust of the article. > 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. You're drawing your own conclusions and then calling them logically fallacious. You write "clearly the intention is to hold them responsible...". But that's not clear at all, perhaps he deferred mentioning the name at this point to make it obvious to his reader that the name wasn't important to his argument. You're getting hung up on the blame game. Hardware support (from wherever it comes) is an integral part of the overall success or failure a person will have when they try Linux. To sully the author of an article who honestly outlines a real experience seems unhelpful. Cheers, Sean
