Re: Hardware hassles: Linux vs. Windows
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 10:56, Christian Convey wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Recently I've spent a lot of time digging through udev / hotplug issues,
> getting to know modprobe, modules.conf, alsaconf, XF86Config-4 etc.
> This was all to get a digicam and a flashdrive to be useful, or to make
> sound/video work.
> As much as I like Linux and its ideals, I thought to myself, "I've never
> had to deal with issues like these in Windows. I buy a product, plug it
> in, and almost always, it just works."
> I'd really like to advocate Linux more to friends and family, but I just
> don't feel like I can recommend the OS to non-techies until dealing with
> hardware gets easier.
> Do you guys have any reflections on why, for technical / social / market
> / whatever reasons, this difference exists between the two OS's exists?
> And are those differences necessary or accidental?
Well part of your answer is that linux is more complex in depth than windows
is. Windows is monolithic, so there is only one thing that has to happen, in
one place. Linux is modular, and has many layers. This philosophy is built
into the design of either system, respectively.
With linux, in the case of say, a usb trackball, you have the kernel, then X,
requiring configuration to be made in at least two places. This is a
tradeoff, since while it definitely gives more difficulty in configuration,
it does offer good modularization, considering once it's done, our trackball
will work in Gnome, KDE, fvwm, olwm, blackbox, ad infinitum.
There's no "right" answer to this question, since it is really rather several
questions, once of which now appears to be "is modularization a good thing"?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
( t | i | m | @ | i | t | . | k | p | t | . | c | c )
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
GPG key fingerprint = 1DEE CD9B 4808 F608 FBBF DC21 2807 D7D3 09CA 85BF