[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hardware hassles: Linux vs. Windows



Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 8:56 am, Christian Convey wrote:


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."


Well, duh. You were shopping for hardware that would work with Windows and not thinking about compatability with other OS's. Obviously, you wouldn't buy hardware that's a pain to use in Windows; why you would fail to provide Linux the same courtesy and expect it to go just as smoothly is beyond me.

The difference has to do entirely with vendor attitude. Not all vendors are equal: You have some that sell broken hardware and patch around the hardware with software, taxing the CPU instead (any manufacturer that makes WinHardware), you have some that are neutral and open the specs so the open source folks can write their own drivers (thus giving back to the community that gives them customers), and then there's the companies that only want the customers but don't want to do anything towards that end (nVidia and it's closed drivers).

I don't think I agree. I'm talking about cases where a good driver exists in both Windows and Linux. My question is: given an existing good driver, why is there more manual work to get a device like a trackball useable under Linux rather than Windows?

Where I'm going is this: Issues like what hotplug and udev do when they see a new device get plugged in, are issues at the OS level rather than at the driver level. It seems to me that even if a vendor supplied a great, open source driver for the trackball, that alone wouldn't prevent me from needing to tinker with gpm and xf86 stuff in order to use that trackball. That's why I see this as more of a kernel/distro issue than a low-level driver issue. Does that make sense?

- C



--
Christian Convey
Computer Scientist,
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Newport, RI



Reply to: