Hacker News Reader

Comment by trueismywork | Hacker News Reader

It's generally problem with bad hardware yes. With good hardware, it's not a problem.

Bad hardware = hardware by vendors who intentionally or unintentionally design it with only windows in mind.

I have a brand new Lenovo laptop. Is that "bad hardware"?

I don't know. Depends on whether it has devices where manufacturers have written drivers only for windows or also for Linux. Sometimes vendors also hide information on how firmware works to prevent other people from writing drivers for Linux.

Of course end users think Linux doesn't support that hardware, when reality is that the device manufacturers don't support Linux.

It doesn’t matter, the end result is that you are substantially more limited in hardware choice and generally have more trouble with Linux on newer hardware. So if you’re not invested in Linux ideologically, it’s difficult to recommend, for laptops in particular.

That's right. Reading the above thread it seems to me the distinction between "good" and "bad" hardware is made by whether it works with Linux, but that's circular reasoning. Moreover, my intention behind my comment about my new Lenovo laptop was that it can't simply be a matter of unusual low-volume hardware running into support issues.

I didn't state anything to the contrary. I just said it depends on the hardware and is not a problem of linux.

Your choice is limited with linux but if buy hardware that's good for Linux, then everything works quite well.

Hardware choice being limited is a problem Linux has. You are defensive about it not being Linux’ fault, but the point is that users generally don’t care whose fault it is.

I’m a Linux user, by the way; but only on my servers.

Definitely it is a problem linux has, and users do not care and sometimes shouldn't care whose fault it is. But if someone asks, then it's okay to give this perspective in my opinion.

There are other reasons not to like linux. Like needless fragmentation due to dynamic libraries versions, like unstable desktop environments for years, like lack of commercially supprted desktop clients for basic office stuff like email and calendar (I have used KDE, Evolution and Thunderbird and all of them feel just slightly underpolished). So, :shrug:

In a bit of sleight of hand you just substituted "good hardware for Linux" where earlier you had the unqualified "good hardware."

It can be the same thing. :-P

I'm being facetious here, but I did edit it and I'm sorry for not making the edit obvious.

It's ok, but what I'm reacting to is any implication that it's simply a matter of the hardware being "bad" and a figurative shrugging of the shoulders with the further implication that the fault, if there is one, lies squarely with the hardware manufacturers for making "bad" hardware and the users for choosing "bad" hardware. Let's set aside value judgments and the assignment of blame and agree that if Linux had better hardware support, probably more people would use it, shall we?

Yes

> So if you’re not invested in Linux ideologically, it’s difficult to recommend, for laptops in particular.

Linux has practical benefits as well; it's not just ideology. But yes, if you want Linux you should make sure your hardware supports it.

Put another way, add "poor hardware support" to the list of reasons not to use Linux.

Poor support for new hardware, yes. Every OS is a series of tradeoffs (Linux lags in new hardware and commercial software, Darwin supports less hardware than any other major OS, NT views the user as the product); you have to decide if the advantages or disadvantages matter more.

Obviously, it's a matter of trade-offs. However, these trade-offs aren't written in stone. If Linux lags in hardware, new or old, that is in part itself a trade-off made by its developers, and if those developers want more people to use Linux, perhaps a change in their priorities would make that more likely. Devote less time to polishing new graphical installers so that Bluetooth is rock solid on more hardware, and maybe more people will use Linux. Or, maybe they won't. That's for the market to decide. But, clearly there are market participants (some of them in this thread) who wish hardware support had a higher priority than it does. Make of that what you will.

> Devote less time to polishing new graphical installers so that Bluetooth is rock solid on more hardware, and maybe more people will use Linux.

I can't imagine that there is any meaningful overlap between people capable of polishing install wizards (UX-centric userspace applications) and dealing with BT (kernel code and plumbing daemons), so it's not really a trade.

> But, clearly there are market participants (some of them in this thread) who wish hardware support had a higher priority than it does. Make of that what you will.

Are those market participants willing to pay for that work, in cash or code? TANSTAAFL.

> Are those market participants willing to pay for that work, in cash or code? TANSTAAFL.

Is Ubuntu demanding they pay for that work in cash or code? Obviously not, since Ubuntu generally offers it for free. You think they do that out of the goodness of their hearts? I don't. I think they benefit from people using their software even for free, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Whatever that benefit is, they'll get less of it if people reject their software because Bluetooth sucks (for example). Suppose that gives them incentive to do something about it. Then what's the problem? Sounds like an efficient market interaction to me.

> I can't imagine that there is any meaningful overlap between people capable of polishing install wizards (UX-centric userspace applications) and dealing with BT (kernel code and plumbing daemons), so it's not really a trade.

Ubuntu pays developers. The more they pay one kind of developer the less they're able to pay other kinds of developers. So yeah. That really is a trade-off for Ubuntu.

Or put another way and say, put poor linux support as a reason to not use certain hardware.

Sure, unless you've already purchased the hardware, or had it purchased for you outside of your control.

All I'm saying is, if the the Linux developers made a better product, probably more people would use it. That is entirely independent of the fact that you can say the same thing about the hardware manufacturers.

Lenovo is a good brand for Linux, i've never had any issues running various distros on my thinkpads over the years.

Lenovo is a good brand and the one issue I've had with several models is Bluetooth audio. You and I had different experiences with the same brand of hardware. To a potential new user considering Linux, do you think our exchange would increase or decrease their confidence about adopting Linux?

Which WiFi did it get? The RTL ones are not good.

I don't have a hardware issue with WiFi. I have an issue with Bluetooth audio.

With Lenovo it could be either. Thinkpads have historically worked pretty well with Linux. The more consumer oriented stuff can be hit or miss. Generally the more newfangled features (dual screens, detachability, extra eink displays, etc.), the worse the support. Thinkpads also tend to last longer, so there’s more time for driver support to catch up before they’re broken or obsolete.

"It could be either." This isn't a fact. It's not written down anywhere that anybody can look up. It is essentially lore, rumor, hearsay. That is not a firm foundation for building confidence in a platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com