>
> Sure OS X has its share of bugs, but can you in anyway suggest that the overall QA or likelihood of there being show stopping problems is less than a Linux OS such as Ubuntu? I sure can't. How many years have we heard from Linux users struggling with *basic* problems such as getting sound to work, getting video to work properly, wifi, etc.? Saying that the problems are just "different" I don't think is fair. Your video or sound not working at all is probably a problem of a much higher magnitude to most people than, say, a dropped network share causing the OS X Finder to spinning beachball.
I can neither agree that these problems are common on Linux, nor that
they are merely magnitude differences of the same kind of problem:
"quality".
Considering:
* I don't have video or sound, wifi, etc. problems in Linux and
haven't in a few years, even though I constantly re-install and tweak
things. HOWEVER I have occasionally in the past found bits of hardware
that I simply couldn't work with.
* In Windows I do have these sorts of problem unless I use it as
pre-installed, without re-installing or tweaking. HOWEVER I don't
usually have problems of the type that go "Oh, crap, there simply is
not a working driver for this piece of hardware for my O.S..."
* Macs shouldn't *EVER* have these problems, considering Apple
controls the hardware and the software and wraps it all up for you
before you buy it.
"Different" sounds plenty fair to me.
> Of course, in a way it's unfair to compare a Linux OS to the Mac since the Mac uses very predictable hardware, but at the end of the day things are what they are. I can count on not having these sorts of basic problems on a Mac. On a Linux (or at least Ubuntu) box, not-so-much. There is a reason why Ubuntu doesn't just happily support the proprietary Nvidia drivers - they are buggy, they cannot be accounted for, and the team cannot offer assurances of them "just working", hence the creation Nouveau, and this doesn't even get into the weaknesses of Xorg (which has always been a weak spot as many users acknowledge, although I *love* *love* *love* the whole X11 forwarding thing, that's slick!) I suppose Apple and Microsoft have more influence over NVidia and ATI in getting them to come up with better drivers or something?
>
> Like I said, I can forgive some problems on account of the circumstances, these drivers being proprietary, more hardware to support, etc. I get it. However, what is more depressing is the constant regression of the hardware and various other features they do support such as some of the things I listed in my original post. If they support something, they ought to test it in new releases, or else don't support it. The NVidia driver (aside from crashing X in the last Ubuntu release) has actually been okay, but there has been regression of the other basic things I have listed. This is what bugs me most!
Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss your frustrations.
I've shared them, myself, in the past; I don't know if you remember
all the crap I had to go through back when I was trying to get Ubuntu
to work as a Desktop O.S. at North on those Dells. And, sure, from
time to time I come across another Broadcom chip that I need to run
the hardware drivers thing for, or a video capture card that I'm not
even willing to *begin* trying to figure out how to use.
I just don't think this type of problem is as prevalent as you're
making it sound, anymore, *especially* if as a Linux user you buy your
equipment with Linux in mind (or pre-loaded, e.g. from System76).
It has been my experience over the past few years that I don't have
any worse or more frequent problems in Linux than other folks do on
their computers. And that the kinds of problems I have had are less
irritating for me to deal with.
The *kinds* of problems people have in Windows and Mac are often
related to business decisions; and if there's one kind of bug I hate
above others is a bug that *someone DECIDED I should have*; the
quintessential example being Windows accusing me of being pirate
because I updated some of my hardware, and threatening to lock itself
down unless I *prove* myself to it.
Or how about the practice of making it so the default save format of
things is particularly hard for other computers to use. e.g.
installing Works on Windows computers when you really want to sell
Office? Then making it so Office and Works are entirely unable to
inter-operate?
Or how about the practice of making each new update to the iPod try to
break all the free software support that's been created for these
devices to try to force everyone to use iTunes? Not just not making it
easy to use, but actively trying to break the uses people have already
made.
I sure as hell don't want to fight with software over who should have
the final say in how my computer acts. With Linux, I'm finally
fighting *alongside* my software to get it to work for me, not
*against* it.
> If I go for an OS like Debian, will they backport fixes to older versions of the software that is available through the OS like Redhat does? I'm sure this will help a lot, but at the time I wasn't sure if a more conservative OS like Debian would work at all with some of the things I'm doing, specifically the LIRC/Myth type stuff? I always figured that these more conservative OSes just focused on servers and less so on being a good Desktop OS?
Sorry to say that I've actually never used straight Debian itself, and
my only experiences outside of Debian-derived Linux was just to study
up for my LPI exam.
Well, no, actually, I did have an Arch box...but anyhow my point is
that, for me, "The Linux Desktop" might as well be Ubuntu.
Simón
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment