Linux Driver Support Still Leaves A Lot To Desire

[kraftman]

No, I'm not saying that Linux has better hardware support, but different.

Linux has superior hardware support to Windows and OS X which depend on third party's that saves them.

[kraftman]

This is very true. I'm always frustrated when I hear people talking about Linux 1999 when they go off on some critical rant.

But it's just as bad with the anti-Windows caricatures... "It crashes all the time... It's infested with viruses... It's slow and bloated..." Windows ME was like a dozen years ago. Things are different today.

(In fairness... when I installed Windows 7, it didn't have a LAN driver, so it couldn't download all the other drivers automatically. Getting and installing the LAN driver was trivial though (double-click to install). Compare that to installing a LAN driver on Linux.)

What's true is Windows 7 is still broken by design (using dos principles...). It's not better, because it's still terribly broken. Vista was even worse nightmare, so this 95 example is flawed.

[kraftman]

Translation: Linux is perfect, and I don't want to hear about any "flaws", because they don't exist.

And people wonder why Linux on the Desktop is functionally dead to 99% of the population.

There's something wrong with your translator. Winboys wants Linux to be like Windows, but Windows sucks. It's popular, because of games and software. That's all. Bring games and software to Linux and Windows will die. Windows is terribly broken, so there are no reasons (except mentioned) to use this virus ware.

[1c3d0g]

...
Maybe both points of view are wrong, maybe the reason is completely different; I don't know, users don't know, they don't care and, again, it doesn't matter. Because those problems are still there, and there are many that just wish to ignore them rather than acknowledge them, and without that first step, no real resolution will ever come.
...

My good God! If I could scream this from the top of my lungs every damn time!

This is EXACTLY what's happening with most users who come to Linux. "My wireless card won't work!", "Why can't I have the same battery life as in Windows?" etc. etc. etc. The first step towards making Linux better is to acknowledge that there ARE problems. Unfortunately there are some in the community which don't want to accept this fact and want to behave like ostriches when they're faced with danger (Google it up if you don't know, you'll see what I mean). This is why it's so important to have lots of discussions with hardware companies and we should all try our very best to convince them to release documentation, code, or anything else that can help developers make things work (better) under Linux.

[Lugaidster]

Linux does have problems, because if it does not - it is perfect, which means it has no place to expand, which in turn means its dead.
Fact that Linux is actively developed, hence postulates that it has problems. No arguing here.

But the WAY these problems are depicted, their nature explained, weither they really exist and weither it is being Linux source of the problem or monopolistic third party, that simply vetos resolution.
This is the relevant detail.
This is exactly why above mentioned list is bullsh!t - it has major problems by preverting such details.

I'm sorry, but you're misinterpreting the purpose of the list. The list presents problems, not reasons for those problems. From the point of view of a regular Desktop user, if the printer doesn't work, it doesn't matter why, only that it doesn't. The reasons for the problems presented can be many. For example, if you ask hardware developer companies why Linux has crappy GPU support, they'll say (some) that's it's because there's no ABI so it makes it hard for them to write the drivers and support them. If you ask Kernel developers (some) it's because they aren't open enough or supportive enough (Case in point, the Linus-Nvidia debacle a few days ago). Maybe both points of view are wrong, maybe the reason is completely different; I don't know, users don't know, they don't care and, again, it doesn't matter. Because those problems are still there, and there are many that just wish to ignore them rather than acknowledge them, and without that first step, no real resolution will ever come. New hardware will continue to be released, new proprietary versions of those libraries to interface with that hardware will continue to be released as well as new technologies around that, and so, with the current approach, there will always be a lag.

Many old computers do run great on Linux, some much better than when they had Windows. But that's not the case with new(ish) hardware and new(ish) technologies.

[scottishduck]

I have no choice, I have to contradict the majority (or all of) that list.

-Point OSS drivers are slower: So what? They're plenty fast enough for the VAST majority of users, who DON'T use their computers for stupid crap like playing games.
-Point OSS drivers have fewer features: Same as previous point -- SO WHAT? They do what they need to do.
-Point difficult to configure drivers: Huh? Not at all. KMS = automatic config in VAST majority of cases, tweaking at GUI System Settings --> Display.
-Point difficult to upgrade drivers: Couldn't be more wrong. "yum update" --> Done.
-Point documentation != developers: Development is plenty fast enough to satisfy virtually everyone.
-Point same-day support: It is impossible to ACTUALLY HAVE hardware on the same day it is released, so this point is irrelevant.
-Point features not implemented: Duplicate of point 2.
-Point linux power consumption > microshit: LIES. I briefly ran microshit7 on my newly acquired laptop to update the BT module in my car... it ran the CPU fan at no less than 50% the entire time. Installed Fedora 17 with discrete GPU disabled, and fan OFF 90%+ of the time, briefly comes on MINIMUM speed when the temp exceeds 40. I DARE YOU to tell me that its using more power in Linux.
-Point sound cards slow to support: Never heard of this before. Every sound card I've EVER seen has worked fully out of the box.
-Point poor printer support: That's really REALLY funny... because I just did a fresh F17 install on my new laptop, and I didn't have to do **ANYTHING** to set up the (NETWORK/WIFI laser) printer. File --> Print, and guess what? It already had the printer configured without me having to DO ANYTHING.
-Point poor peripheral support: If you have ever seen a keyboard or mouse that did NOT work in Linux, let me know about it and I'll tell you how to PLUG IT IN. MUCH more unusual equipment than a simple keyboard or mouse works perfectly.... scanners, webcams, etc.


Wifi works,
web cams work (strangly, I have several computers with webcams, including laptops built in, and the all work 100%),
Even a BLUETOOTH 3 modules -- working.


No weird drivers, nothing to install.
Just drop in the install disk and EVERYTHING is up 100% without exception.

Is it tough living with autism?

[crazycheese]

Whether you like it or not, there are many users aggravated by most of what appears on that list. But I guess you either don't care about other people's problems or you're too enveloped in your own perfect world that you just don't want to see it. There's none so blind as those who will not see...

Linux does have problems, because if it does not - it is perfect, which means it has no place to expand, which in turn means its dead.
Fact that Linux is actively developed, hence postulates that it has problems. No arguing here.

But the WAY these problems are depicted, their nature explained, weither they really exist and weither it is being Linux source of the problem or monopolistic third party, that simply vetos resolution.
This is the relevant detail.
This is exactly why above mentioned list is bullsh!t - it has major problems by preverting such details.

[Hamish Wilson]

This is not fact, more likly it a myth you are trying to start. Googleing for ""fedora 17" "not working on my"" gives about 51k hits, mot of them hardware related. ""fedora 17" "not working with"" will serve you another 233K, instead of wasting every bodys time here you should probably go help out some of the unfortunate useres with your magical advice.

To be completely fair, that can apply to any operating system under sun. You will always find people posting about problems on support forums. Things are odd like that.

Not trying to be a dick, and I agree that to say there are no problems is not true, but using Google as a counterargument is counterproductive.

[bittwiddler]

There is something wrong with this rush to the smartphone market.
Surely there is a stable desktop market. As for myself, I'll have a hard
time moving off Gnome2. If I get shoved off a cliff, I may have to
move to Linux Mint/Mate.

[MonkeyPaw]

I agree about OS/X & WIndows driver support - Nobody does as good a job at supporting third-party
hardware as Microsoft. The real problem at this point is that they may succeed at locking Linux
off the desktop with UEFI.

OTOH, they may commit corporate suicide with W8. That would be fine by me, as long as I get
all of the W7 licenses that I need.

Well, MS has a huge advantage in dictating driver standards. Where else are hardware manufacturers going to go? Apple barely offers upgrades beyond drives and RAM, save the low-volume MacPro (which does not support many PCIe devices anyway). Device makers mostly have only one real option for profit, and that's to offer driver support for Windows, the OS that has the highest marketshare. Sadly, while most devices work in Windows, they occasionally suck. I've had some LAN and WiFi issues in the past on Windows (recently, I might add).

As for UEFI locking out linux, I might need some clarification. I've installed Ubuntu on 2 UEFI machines already. It just requires a small EFI partition and then it's all good. I believe Windows 8 was at one time planned to lock down the bootloader, but I think MS may have backtracked a little on that one, probably to keep from being sued. Even then I think that was more for WindowsRT devices.

As you said, Windows 8 is very make or break for MS. People are already needing the full power of PCs less and less, and I think that's why MS is gambling hard on a tablet OS. Problem is, they might be shooting themselves in the foot by making the PC experience so confusing. If people think global menu hiding is bad, what about totally hiding menus and functions off into hot corners? Toss in the jarring Metro-to-classic window experience, and I get the feeling people will not be fans of the change. I see it as a Vista moment, where people will be begging for downgrading to 7, thus extending its support well past Windows 9.