Re: Hardware hassles: Linux vs. Windows
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:28:16 -0500
Christian Convey <conveycj@npt.nuwc.navy.mil> wrote:
> Jacob S wrote:
> > The Windows approach is fine, if you have the patience to deal with
> > a lot of crashes, blue screens and problems without a seeming
> > reason, cause or solution. This is great for non-mission critical
> > stuff. The Linux approach is fine if you have geeks for friends or
> > enough money to pay for things to be setup for you. This tends to be
> > easier in a business and mission critical environment.
> >
>
> But to be fair, that hasn't been my experience with Windows XP at all.
Yes, but Windows XP is seen by many as Microsoft's answer to the Linux
craze. They were getting worried about the market share they were
losing. It's not been that long since Microsoft announced they were
going to take time off from writing features just so they could "fix
bugs". That's something that had never happened before.
Also, Windows XP is based on their business version of Windows. That's
another we never got before. Without that, everything was _very_ buggy.
> So I'm doubtful that the users' simplicity offered by Windows has
> crashiness as a necessary consequence.
You used a usb trackball as an example in a previous e-mail. But you
also mentioned how it might prompt you for the driver. That helps prove
another person's point about how the hardware vendors write the drivers
for Windows, but not for Linux. Linux programmers have to spend time
writing the driver - without documentation or help from the
manufacturer, Windows programmers just have to worry about plugging in
the driver as needed.
> (Also, it seems to me that a badly written driver can kill Linux just
> as expediently as it can.)
Kernel drivers? Sure. Watch out for experimental, or worse alpha
drivers. I haven't had a kernel driver crash Linux in over 4 years now.
And I use a usb keyboard, mouse, memory stick, etc.
Jacob
Reply to: