Re: Linux Functionality?
On Dec 26 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Because w32codecs and ndiswrappers are x86 binary packages, they tie
> many people to x86-32 (even in a chroot) who would rather go whole
> hog to x86-64.
Not only that, but all the other platforms (like ppc) that receive
less attention that x86-64. You have to run something like qemu to run
binaries in emulated mode. Ugh.
That's why I try to only purchase things that I *know* that will work
fine with Linux.
Not all software/hardware works well with all installations of Windows
(see all those "Recommended configuration" parts in software) and
people do pay attention to those matters (even if they choose to
ignore and try to run with hardware that is less powerful, but that's
entirely another matter).
So, why shouldn't I care if the hardware is supported under Linux?
This is, BTW, one of the reasons that I have not yet upgraded my
current desktop machine: everything here is supported with Open Source
drivers.
I fear purchasing a given product and then not being able to use it to
*my* hearts content (not to the manufacturers'). I'm mostly thinking
here of graphic cards (I'm currently using a Matrox G400 here), but
the same thoughts are also valid with chipsets and with wireless cards
(like those hacks of using w32codecs -- it's surely fun to have that,
especially for the developers seeing their hacks working, but, IMVHO,
that's not the right thing to do).
--
Learn to quote e-mails decently at:
http://pub.tsn.dk/how-to-quote.php
http://learn.to/quote
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/toppost.htm
Reply to: