Words by Les Mikesell [Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:32:27AM -0500]: > Dave Ihnat wrote: > > > Both Linux and Windows work on platforms that have, literally, > > thousands of vendors manufacturing a tremendous range of equipment, > > most of which has to have a properly working device driver. > > Yes, and my experience over the last 5 years has been that the Windows versions are more dependable than the fedora versions. I'm sure there are > individual exceptions to that, but I just don't see fedora as a bastion of stability here - or in a position to claim that they have the only > approach to drivers that can work. > What? You must be trolling. More dependable? More like more predictable, you can always predict there will be troubles. And if your experience is from the last 5 years I bet you've had ME and 98 ubber troubles to some extend. > > > Much as > > they'd like to, Microsoft can't control all these vendors; the original > > PC was wide open--they even published schematics and the source to the > > BIOS--and that legacy is embedded in the attitude of the vendors today. > > (MS's attempt to lock down the driver interface with Vista is meeting > > with a lot of resistance.) > > > The Vista approach deserves to fail for the same reasons DRM does, but the driving force has to be consumer reaction. If something is difficult to > use, don't use it. > What are talking about? Is it dificult to install or use Fedora? What's the dificulty, I don't get it. Could you elaborate? -- Jose Celestino ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.msversus.org/ ; http://techp.org/petition/show/1 http://www.vinc17.org/noswpat.en.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- "And on the trillionth day, Man created Gods." -- Thomas D. Pate
