Kim Lux wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 22:40 +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
Pissing people off seems to be one of Kim's few talents.
well said... :)
I'm just the messenger, people. There are millions of people that think
Linux is crap because its the domain of nerds. And when you kick
someone who has complaints about usability or functionality you are just
proving them right and preventing the adoption of ideas for making it
better.
I wonder how many people have installed Linux, figured out they needed a
built driver and stopped using Linux because of that. Or better yet,
came onto a Linux forum and got insulted by a linux know it all.
Back in 1999 when I really started using Linux, drivers were only
available for better equipment, like certain Ethernet cards.
Today, I seem to install on computer with hardware that is recognized
all of the time.
For comparison, when still on windows 3.1 and using AOL, I discontinued
service for a short time and soon realized that I needed drivers and a
connection to the Internet pretty much as a requirement. When setting up
Windows machines rarely now, the situation is pretty much the same as
back in dial-up, win 3.1 and AOL days. Linux to me is pretty much
complete compared to Windows. That is even though most hardware
manufacturers supply drivers needed to run the system. It still needs to
be acquired by the vendor. It is not usually within the OS.
As a note, one of the Win 2000 installs I did recently was using a
nvidia card, it worked only with 16 colors and 800x600 resolution.
The same machine recognized all of the hardware located in the computer
successfully with FC4 and with FC5, why not with the other OS?
Jim
--
The relative speed of a computer, regardless of CPU architecture, is
inversely proportional to the number of Microsoft products installed.
-- From a Slashdot.org post
