I don't get the distinction. Linux has to run on the hardware, no?
Neither does blaming Linux developers.
But the fact is, Linux developers are doing their best to cooperate, while hardware vendors aren't. It's not about assigning blame, it's about describing the objective state of facts.
Saying "[this is yet] another area where Linux Distros are at least 10 years behind Windows" has a certain unpleasant tone that reeks of blame.
How do you figure? This just strikes me as insecurity. Regardless of the fact that your quote represents a nonsensical claim, Linux's lack of hardware support isn't something worth dancing around, it's just reality.
You could say that about any kind of criticism related to someone's tone, and nobody could prove you wrong. I'm just sharing my own opinion about the quote.
But considering the other comments on this thread, it's fair to say that my opinion is shared by many other people here - so either we're all insecure, or my quote really has a certain unpleasant tone that reeks of blame.
The people that want to run Linux on their machines, make efforts in that direction, either by ensuring that the hardware they run Linux on is compatible, or invest time/money in making it compatible. When hardware vendors provide documentation and man power it's "easy", when they don't it's hard or impossible or, like in this specific case, only the basic capabilities of the hardware can be exploited.