Hacker News Reader

Comment by rg3 | Hacker News Reader

I think the postscript is quite rude. Disregarding possible criticism because he's a Linux sysadmin and has contributed to the kernel. To be fair, he's doing something wrong even if he doesn't want to admit it: choosing the wrong hardware. His most direct and important complaints come down to that.

I bought a new computer past summer and all its hardware worked properly from day zero, ethernet, wifi, 3D acceleration, suspending, hibernating and dual-monitors included. I chose the right hardware. Flash support? The 64-bit flash plugin is not crashing here. I use flashblock to avoid possible security problems, but I use it in Windows too, to avoid annoying ads with sound. The quality of OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice is good enough for desktop users, in my humble opinion.

And the rest of the post is debatable at least. Linux and its software ecosystem are not to blame for poor Skype support, for example.

View on HN

I would support his position if only because, in this day and age, should a Linux power user have to do hours and hours of research to avoid purchasing the 'wrong' hardware? To me, his opinion boils down to: bad support for cutting edge (or even just current day) tech. He mentioned at the beginning that he was a cutting edge guy.

Desktop Linux is really for people that can/will line up all their ducks in a row (and then sometimes debug those ducks) when upgrading hardware. Even as a technical person I can understand if you don't wish to continue to pour time into that sort of thing.

How much research can one really do? Perhaps things are better, but I got tired of looking at 'hardware compatibility' lists that were out of date and/or only referenced hardware that was not available for purchase within a hundred mile radius of my house.

I saw a reference in a list about a wireless card 'model644b' that worked, so I bought it, then found out that, hell no, you got 'model644br4', and only r1 and r3 really work, as r4 was manufactured in a different facility and they used a different process (BS like this). The box and listing doesn't show the hardware revision number to the public - you have to open it up to find that out. (I made up the model number, but had pretty much that same issue in 2005).

I took an ubuntu boot dvd to several stores wanting to test out compatibility before purchasing a laptop, and was ejected from a couple. TigerDirect staff basically ignored me, whether out of respect for my mad testing skillz or just apathy - I couldn't tell, but I bought a laptop there in 2008 because I think I verified the wireless worked out of the box.

When the answer to 'linux on the desktop' is 'go research loads of conflicting or hard to find info, the order from an online store and piece it together yourself or pay loads extra for a custom built laptop' to guarantee, no thanks. That sort of 'freedom' isn't for me.

Maybe there is room then for a short HOWTO on finding hardware. Not an extensive compatibility list, but some hardware that is known to work well to make the purchasing process easier.

Or perhaps the necessity of HCLs at all is indicative of a larger problem. This is not something end-users should be responsible for. Maybe 10+ years ago when the options were fewer and easier to sift through, but now? It's tedious to the point of maddening.

It is probably indicative of a larger problem, although one that is very hard for the community to solve. A big issue with hardware support is the lack of specifications and vendor participation. Vendors are getting better at that, but it's still an issue and the major vendors are less-than-stellar. For consumer components, Intel is about the only one that's all-in on Linux support; nVidia insists on binary drivers that are hard to install and have a checkered reliability history, and ATI provides specs but to my knowledge no engineering effort (although AMD/ATI may be improving on that front). Not sure how things are in the sound department w/ Creative, etc. these days.

If vendors provided and honestly advertised Linux support, that would be a much better world. Then compatibility can be checked at the store. It'd be bad, though, if they supported Linux like they do Windows - with a gig of userspace junkware.

To be fair, the wide adoption of notebooks made it harder to "choose" the right hardware. With a desktop PC you could just (in the worst case) replace individual components lacking proper driver support whereas with a notebook you basically have to do all that "research" up front. I think this made it somewhat harder to use Linux as a desktop OS, though it's not the fault of Linux (or some particular distribution).

While not optimal, virtualization can be a solution in many cases: Using a 64 bit Linux server, a 32 bit Linux desktop (in regards to Linux I don't quite see the benefit of 64 bit at this point) and your host OS of choice is becoming encreasingly practical with memory prices getting lower. Better than throwing out Linux (with the many great hacker -friendly features it has) or having to select an older notebook just to run it.

(I don't disagree with much of what you are saying, just wanted to add another angle)

No, I actually agree with you. It's harder with laptops and notebooks. With Windows and OSX, the manufaturer does all that work for the user, while us Linux users are normally alone out there looking for compatible computers. It's not easy to get a laptop or notebook with Linux preinstalled, at least in some countries. You know, I could buy something like that from Dell, but the keyboard layout would be different and make it harder to input my native charset. Plus, many people trying Linux for the first time will try to run it in a computer they bought without Linux and compatibility could be horrible.

I thought the same about the rudeness. I don't know why "try another distro" should not be acceptable when you are a kernel developer. The OS is more than just the kernel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com