Sean Estabrooks wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:55:42 -0600 "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If he'd argued this with *any* common, available, real (really real, as
in tangible!) sound card, his argument would have been a lot stronger.
But the way he tested... was simply doomed to fail. The whole story
really had no other possible ending.
Yes he mentions a previous article about Virtual PC's from Microsoft but how sure are you he was testing Linux on a virtual PC:
<quote> Despite my very positive first impressions, I couldn't get XYZ to work
with my sound card at all, even though I was testing XYZ on a brand new PC
from a major vendor. The system was based on an utterly mainstream Intel
motherboard with an on-board Intel sound system. This isn't some weird,
off-brand system using unknown components: It's about as mainstream as it
gets.
</quote>
Cheers,
Sean
Then why wouldn't he say who manufactured the hardware or the sound card?
I find it really hard to believe that with out additional drivers, the "mainstream" sound card worked with the original version of Windows 95, but does not work with a "current" version of Linux. Someone would have to do a considerable amount of research to find a "current" "mainstream" sound card that works with the original version of Windows 95, but that would not work with Linux. Most "current" "mainstream" sound cards have changed considerably in the last 9 years.
The point of his article did not seem to be if Linux was ready ready for the desktop, but was to deduce that with a single piece of hardware no version of Linux he had was able to work it out of the box. Had Fred tried a piece of hardware that came with Linux installed on it, he would have likely not been able to write the same article.
The article was correct for the hardware he was using, but it had many technical flaws if it was supposed to be an unbiased technical assessment. He was right about Linux is still not ready for the average moron with enough money to buy a new computer. Lots of people have more money than brains, and half of them who buy computers should give the the computer to their kids and leave it alone. I deal with morons every day that can't get a new Mac or PC to check their email. I actually had one person who not only didn't know if they were using a Mac or a PC, but when I asked them to click the start button they turned off their monitor, need I say any more.
It is not so much that Linux is not ready for the mainstream desktop user, but that mainstream desktop users are not ready for Linux.
I put Linux on a computer I gave to a friend with a young family. My friend and his family has had no problems using the machine, and still use it even though they also bought a new laptop with Windows XP on it. Granted I built it and installed Linux on, so they had a completely functional machine to start with. The point is, Linux needs better support from hardware vendors if it is ever going to become mainstream, it is the chicken and egg scenario all over again. Unless people request support for Linux, vendors will not support Linux and if vendors don't support Linux then not as many people will opt for Linux.
