Linux has better hardware support than OS X

http://devblog.avdi.org/2013/06/16/linux-has-better-hardware-support-than-os-x/

by steveklabnik • 13 years ago

241 212 13 years ago

devblog.avdi.org

The current problem with linux is apps and the desktop itself. Apps - where do I start? There are so many to choose from, yet most will never do the complete job. Most desktop environments have devolved into a sorry state in the name of 'organic UI' and mostly unusable graphics animations by the window managers.

Things are becoming much easier these days though since everything is moving to the cloud and steam has arrived.

steveklabnik8• 13 years ago

I think that more 'consumer-oriented' or maybe 'convention over configuration' distros have this kind of thing covered. I recently installed Crunchbang Linux and it already has suggested, pre-installed apps for "terminal/file manager/editor/media player/web browser/task manager/screenshot" over on the right hand side of the desktop.

But yeah, the 'which app do I choose?' problem is very real.

kryten11• 13 years ago

I disagree. The default gnome2 desktop (provided by Mate) is top notch. Outside of this there are a core of decent, consistent apps and an ancillary of total crap. This is the same with Windows and OS-X.

In fact most non-core Windows and OSX apps are absolutely criminal.

Sure the cloud and Steam are more convenient, but this form of convenience will be the fall of us all and convert us into consumption targets ready to be milked regularly.

TheLegace• 13 years ago

I don't know I disagree too. I know GNOME3 might not be for everyone, but I honestly feel my desktop experience is almost perfect(there are some fancy things even I would like though). When I use OSX or (shudder) Windows I feel very constrained, and feel like I have to many actions to complete to get to my objective.

taeric5• 13 years ago

Having been away from the Windows world for so long, I'm curious just how different it actually is. Sure, there are obvious choices for business use in many fields. Even Office is a somewhat obvious choice for most places. However, as a standard consumer, it is much too expensive to "just have." And, really, finding the correct software to just "make a greeting card" or something similar is terrible. Then there is the joy of trying to find software that organizes photos and such well.

Then there is printer support. I cringe when I think of trying to scan or print something in Windows, my last experiences being so terrible. Nowdays, though, in Linux this is something that really has "just worked" for a while now.

So, is it really that much more rosy in the application choice of other platforms? Or is it just more visible in the company you keep?

kryten11• 13 years ago

As a Windows and Linux user on a daily basis, I'll tell you that no-one bothers with Office unless they are running a business. Everyone else seems happy with ancient copies of OpenOffice that their cheap laptop came with or LibreOffice if they have to get involved in installing anything.

Also, people don't organise photos with additional software now. Windows Explorer itself is pretty damn good at it to be honest and does what 99% of people will need. If they need anything else they'll probably use what came with their digital camera. I use ViewNX2 which came with my camera.

Printing just works - plug in and go. Although to be honest I have a 8 year old Brother laser printer and send anything else away to be printed elsewhere.

It's all fine everywhere. The ages of "it just works" are pretty much here.

It's not the XP days any more :)

Linux however does like to poke me in the eye with power management and hibernation issues. That's not been resolved ever, even though I've got a 7 year old machine!

ewzimm2• 13 years ago

Printing on Windows is so bad that people are employed just to fix it. Office crashes a lot and has compatibility issues with certain formats, and I often just direct people to LibreOffice, which in every case has fixed the problem and run smoothly. Any minor Windows system problem usually results in sending the machine to be re-imaged. If you're on Windows 8, a lot of old stuff simply doesn't work, and in the absence of old versions, the most stable solution is often to run Wine. It's definitely still a mess.

derleth2• 13 years ago

I guess it depends on what apps you mean. I use Emacs, Firefox, LibreOffice on occasion, and a lot of development stuff, and it all works fine for me.

I also don't know what you mean by "unusual graphics animations" in terms of window managers. Window Maker has no such thing.

city41• 13 years ago

That's not a double standard at all. OSX having superior hardware support because it runs in a walled garden on hand picked hardware from Apple themselves is entirely by design and something Apple put a lot of energy, money and dedication into. OSX absolutely should benefit from this over other OSes, as it did not come for free.

nnnnni• 13 years ago

Exactly -- and Linux is designed to run on pretty much anything!

This was a stupid article. "Gee, water is wet and sand is dry! (usually)"

btbuilder• 13 years ago

I guess it depends on the used definition of hardware support. Traditionally when I hear hardware support I think of how many devices are supported, not how well are the supported devices supported.

masklinn• 13 years ago

Yeah basically there are two axis of hardware support: breadth (how much hardware is supported) and depth (how well the supported devices are supported).

When people talk about OSX hardware support they tend to talk about depth, Windows or OSX is more breadth.

Though the depth of OSX's hardware support is debatable as well, GPU support has historically been fairly dismal.

fragmede• 13 years ago

The author's point is that there IS handpicked hardware from Lenovo (for certain models), by design, and something Intel, among others, put a lot of energy, money and dedication into. Linux absolutely should benefit from this over other OSes, as it did not come for free.

coldtea8• 13 years ago

And yet, Linux doesn't have all that great driver support in that handpicked hardware from Lenovo.

Lots of stuff have Win/Mac only drivers.

sn0v2• 13 years ago

Maybe this reference list should be more widely available, especially from major vendors like Canonical. Improving the visibility of the list by putting it up on the distro download page would certainly put quite a few minds at ease.

Sealy• 13 years ago

I'm willing to pay the premium and always do (willingly), every time I make that upgrade decision.

th0br0• 13 years ago

Actually, even ThinkPads aren't the inofficial reference platform these days either... I've had this W520 for the past 2 years and, while running with NVIDIA graphics, I can neither boot without specific kernel options (pci=noacpi) nor can I change the brightness after the kernel is loaded (pre-kernel changes are fine and stay after boot. Even changing brightness after kernel load but before loading of the nvidia module causes a silent crash)

loser777• 13 years ago

Yup, this is increasingly the case. Kernels 3.9.x still have power consumption issues when using suspend/resume on Tx2x (Sandy Bridge) machines. If you managed to buy a ThinkPad from that generation with "Thinkpad Wireless," good luck getting reliable wireless connectivity, as the binary blob 8188CE drivers are worse than garbage.

As much as people talk about how AMAZING hardware support on linux is, if you want a "just works" experience, the lowest common denominator is usually Intel CPU, Intel Wireless, Intel Graphics.

And that exotic keyboard layout with function keys? Hope you like configuring xbindkeys.

rodgerd• 13 years ago

Unfortunately Ingo has pretty much shitcanned any efforts to progress power saving support for the forseeable future, so don't expect things to improve.

aeroevan• 13 years ago

I think that was the nvidia optimus switchable crap that had very little Linux support.

I think some of the most recent NVIDIA drivers have some support, but my T410 thankfully doesn't have that.

ownagefool2• 13 years ago

I doubt there is a reference platform, but if there is one it's really with intel graphics. Only this, from a laptop point of view, has the kind of support that is needed from a thermals point of view. AMD is apparently nearly there with new power managment code, so this may change in the future.

Obviously if you want to use binary drivers, you can, but one would hardly call that reference, inofficial or not.

LeonidasXIV• 13 years ago

Oh and when booting with nvidia disabled, the Intel card in the T420 is not entering power save after standby, this regression is open since kernel 3.6.2 (October 2012).

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=150743&p=16 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/32025

DrJokepu2• 13 years ago

Linux doesn't "just work" on Apple hardware. None of the major distros can currently get the Ethernet adapter on recent Mac Minis working. As a result, we have to run OS X on a bunch of Mac Mini servers we've planned to run Linux on.

archon• 13 years ago

Just curious, if you were just planning on running Linux, why buy Mac Minis?

Ives• 13 years ago

For the hardware, I'd assume?

DrJokepu2• 13 years ago

In the past few years we had a lot of success using Mac Minis with OS X as servers. With the latest batch of Mac Minis we have purchased we tried to move over from OS X to Linux, partially because people tend to be more familiar with administering Linux servers and partially because OS X as a server can be a bit quirky.

driverdan4• 13 years ago

The article didn't claim it did.

cabirum2• 13 years ago

Linux "supports" most of current hardware by using generic drivers offering minimal functionality for any given device. The device will work, but not any of it's non-standard or advanced features.

E.g. want to switch DPI in your new shiny Logitech mouse? Or customize behavior of it's buttons? Nope, sorry, not supported.

I, for one, do not consider this a supported hardware, even if basic functionality is there.

DanBC3• 13 years ago

Linux's "basic functionality" used the full resolution of my integrated graphics card to allow me to run my monitor at native resolution. Windows 7's basic functionality didn't let me run my monitor at native resolution, thus I had to put up with blurry fonts until I downloaded the (huge!) new driver.

At the moment there's lots of anecdote - "This worked under one OS, but not the other" - but a comprehensive review of hardware support in modern OSs would be handy.

cabirum2• 13 years ago

Windows 7 is quite old - it was released back in 2009. It does not know if included graphics driver is compatible with your card. New Ubuntu versions are released twice a year[1], each containing up-to-date hardware info.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Versio...

hdra• 13 years ago

Not sure what kind of hardware you have, but the last time I experienced something like that was in XP.

ernesth• 13 years ago

want to switch DPI in your new shiny Logitech mouse? Or customize behavior of its buttons? Nope, sorry, not supported.

Switching DPI of a shiny logitech mice and customizing the behaviour of its buttons is of course supported in linux.

virtualwhys7• 13 years ago

Actually, that's funny with my Logitech Trackball (4-button) mouse I've actually had a much better experience (performance/usability) than running the same mouse on Windows or OSX.

Got draglock and better scrolling (horizontal and vertical), plus you can combine button clicks and key bindings to do whatever you like, something you can't do on Windoze or McMacs ;-)

It's a fallacy that things don't work on Linux. It's also a fallacy that life is better on the other side of the fence since the user is subjected to an environment of passive non-learning -- which rears it's head when the provided GUI comes up short (oh no, now what do I do?)

rubiquity4• 13 years ago

It's always been a little mind boggling to me that in Web Development where we deploy to Linux servers nearly 100% of the time so many people, especially in the Ruby community, develop using OS X instead. Personally, I use OS X at work because that's what my employer gave me but at home I use Linux that runs just about perfect with a Dell Vostro laptop.

That said, there are some great, modern tools that people have made for OS X that won't work on Linux (brew, pow, rbenv, etc. - ok rbenv works on linux but its spotty) that I miss from when I switch to Linux at home. And while I know Linux has equivalents of the three examples I listed I think the interface of those tools, and many others on OS X, are just nicer and easier to use in general. It would be nice to see a focus on better tooling for Linux users and less OS X only tooling in the future.

tobych• 13 years ago

Do people really do this on the native OS on a Mac? I use Macs for all my work, but we deploy to Linux, so that's what runs in all the VMs I run on my Mac. Currently I even use Eclipse in an Ubuntu VM to do the work. I wouldn't know how to install a package on my Mac if I tried, and given that all the production machines run on Linux, I've never seen the need.

rubiquity4• 13 years ago

It sounds like you're in the minority based on places I've worked and people I've met! Good for you though, I think it requires a lot of discipline to stay on top of VMs which is why so many people install things directly to OS X.

wmoxam• 13 years ago

It makes no sense to miss brew on Linux ... The only reason brew exists is because OSX doesn't have an official package manager.

Also what problems did you have with rbenv on Linux? It seemed to work just fine the last time I used it ...

rubiquity4• 13 years ago

I think the interface that brew provides is very simple and easy to use. The terminal output during installation is nice. Again, it's the extra little polishing of these OS X tools that I think really draws people to them and keep using them.

In regards to rbenv, the "core" part of rbenv(switching between versions of Ruby) works fine. It's the other tools like ruby-build and rbenv-install that didn't work for me. I don't mind manually compiling my rubies though.

demallien• 13 years ago

Yup, I'm a huge mac fangirl, and then only thing I miss from the linux PC I have at work is a real package manager. apt-get, yum, good grief even gentoo scratches that itch for me better than brew or fink or macports

ownagefool2• 13 years ago

Vagrant is the answer. I mean virtulization itself is the answer, but vagrant packages it up in such a way that it's easy to use on any platform and easy to get going as long as someone takes the time to write the first file.

Basically, wave of the future. :p

petepete• 13 years ago

rbenv is 'pretty spotty' on Linux? In my experience it works perfectly.

Linux is my development environment of choice and the beauty of it is I don't need 'better tooling' in order to get my job done quickly and efficiently; everything 'just works'.

primelens• 13 years ago

Change the statement to "OS X has better hardware support on the Mac" (and conversely Linux has better support than OS X on everything non-Mac) and there would be no need for this article. One's a walled garden - albeit I am glad that it's at least a POSIX garden - and another is a truly open platform running on every hardware imaginable. It's like saying iOS sucks on the Google Nexus or Android sucks on iPhones.

steveklabnik8• 13 years ago

Right, but people don't make that argument, they say "I'll switch to Linux when it has as good of hardware support as OS X does." At least in my circles.

mseebach• 13 years ago

Canonical and Dell are working together to certify certain laptops to run Ubuntu. Those should have perfect hardware support:

http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/make/Dell/?categ...

driverdan4• 13 years ago

Valid points but the author highlights one of the original reasons I switched from a ThinkPad running Linux to a MacBook. All high end Linux laptops have driver issues, including ThinkPads. Last thing I knew you still couldn't switch between discreet NVIDIA graphics and the Intel 4000 without a reboot. I've been told some laptops still have issues with sleep / hibernation.

Maybe the Dell XPS 13 highlighted in the article works well (no discreet video) but for that price I can buy a MacBook with equal specs that will natively run Adobe products.

I'd prefer to run Linux on hardware with smaller margins but until there is a reference system (or at least one that works flawlessly) I'll stick with Apple.

kryten11• 13 years ago

I use Windows 7 on a 7 year old ThinkPad with Linux inside a VirtualBox VM.

Works better and consumes less power and therefore has longer battery life than Linux on bare metal.

My 2010 MacBook Pro caught fire, so I can't vouch for Apple's reliability.

mikegioia• 13 years ago

I really find it hard to believe that Win7 on 7 year old hardware with Linux in a VM works better than just Linux on the same hardware. What on earth are you measuring this on?

eLobato2• 13 years ago

I've had an Nvidia Optimus + Intel 4000 since Nov 2012 and I never had to reboot, just specify when I wanted to run a particular program with Nvidia (games), everything else would run by default with Intel.

Everything worked out of the box, the only minor issue is that bluetooth audio connection with my jambox is sometimes lost, but i could never even get it to work with a Mac.

virtualwhys7• 13 years ago

That sounds unlikely, the switching between integrated and discrete GPU -- which distro are you running?

Definitely not happening in a multi-monitor setup without Bumblebee or other workaround.

driverdan4• 13 years ago

Good to know Bumblebee is finally working well.

jebblue• 13 years ago

> All high end Linux laptops have driver issues, including ThinkPads.

That wasn't my experience with mine, so apparently at least one ran fine.

Nursie2• 13 years ago

I ran linux on a variety of thinkpads for several years. Never did have one of these weird hybrid ones though, so maybe that's it.

Never had a need to run adobe products either, but I am entertained how often and for how many years things like photoshop have been used as a prop to crow about how inadequate linux is.

edent2• 13 years ago

Interestingly, I run Ubuntu on a MacBook and a MacBook Air. As they are a "fixed" target, I figured that at least one developer would have made sure that they "just worked". And, indeed, they did.

The installation tutorial was comprehensive, the out of the box experience was great, and upgrades have gone smoothly.

The only thing to note was that I was able to manually update the WiFi drivers for (supposedly) better performance if I wanted. Power consumption seems marginally higher, but I don't run the same profile of programs in OSX.

Having a fixed target is really good for Linux to show how it can shine - and I hope that Dell and Ubuntu continue to make perfectly matched hardware and software.

errnoh• 13 years ago

Yeah, this is why I laughed at the line "No, it doesn’t have an official reference platform, not even whatever PC Linus happens to be using these days.". Linus is quite known for using MacBooks himself.

tsycho• 13 years ago

Based on his recent G+ posts, it seems he is using a Chromebook Pixel now.

chc• 13 years ago

Really? That's good to hear. I know support for MacBooks used to be quite poor in Ubuntu. I'm not sure when they got it up to snuff, but I know as recently as a couple of years ago (the last time I tried it), waking up from sleep was still a crapshoot on a MacBook Pro. Maybe it would wake up, maybe your trackpad would even still work after it woke up — but you were never sure.

iano• 13 years ago

I thought the same, but as chance should have it I finally installed Ubuntu on my mpb yesterday. It went off without a hitch, and as far as I can tell everything works out of the box (wireless, dual monitors, sound, even all of the Mac function keys!).

It was a surprisingly pleasant experience.

mathnode2• 13 years ago

What about over heating?

I tried ubuntu 12.04, and 12.10 on a 2011 macbook air 4,2. I followed the information here, some of the tweaks weren't needed on 12.10:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBookAir4-2

But the fans were spinning almost constantly. This was with just firefox and vim usage.

OS X seems to do a better job of running Apple hardware at a sensible temperature.

S201• 13 years ago

I'm using this project on my Macbook retina and it works wonderfully: https://github.com/dgraziotin/Fan-Control-Daemon The fans only spin up when I'm doing something intensive and go back down to completely silent when finished.

rsync2• 13 years ago

Exactly. If there is any hardware platform that should be a "reference" platform for Linux (or FreeBSD) it should be the mac. It's a very tightly focused hardware ecosystem with broad adoption and of higher quality - inside and out.

mjg592• 13 years ago

It's a very tightly focused hardware ecosystem with no publicly available documentation for the ways that it differs from the broader hardware ecosystem. Supporting Apple hardware well is hard, and I say that as a person who's done a lot of work on Linux support for Macs.

keeperofdakeys• 13 years ago

There are a few reasons why a mac wouldn't make a good reference platform. Besides Apple changing hardware/firmware setups between every release, it doesn't have much official documentation and support for developers making an OS for it. Many people go to great pains to make linux run well on a Mac, especially hacking around the UEFI bugs that are present (not that they don't appear on other platforms either).

You also don't really want a reference plaform for linux, because as soon as you specify one, you might start making decisions which only benefit that platform. This is bad for the current eco-system, as it could impact linux's ability to run everywhere.

PS. Not to mention that Macs ship with broadcom wireless cards these days, which don't have very good linux support.

seabrookmx• 13 years ago

and of higher quality

That's completely your opinion. I have had much better luck with Thinkpads. Many of the Unibody Macbooks have severe wifi connectivity and overheating issues.

As far as broad adoption goes, it may be more broad than the adoption of Thinkpads, but I wouldn't call it "broad" by any stretch. Mac market share is still quite low - less than 10%.

beagle3• 13 years ago

Can you list your "known working" platform (Macbook model, Linux distro and version, etc?) or a good place to find those, if you know one? I'm going to replace my laptop soon, and am considering a Mac, but I've been running only Linux since 2005, and would love to know how to pick a Mac that would allow me to continue doing that.

edent2• 13 years ago

I'm using Ubuntu 12.04 I think. Linux version 3.2.0-48-generic (buildd@komainu) (gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) ) #74-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 6 19:43:26 UTC 2013

Running on a 13 inch MacBook Air.

There's a guide at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBookAir4-2

Derbasti4• 13 years ago

You wish. For years, I have been trying to run Linux on my dual GPU Macbook Pros. This generally works, but Linux always uses the "big" GPU, thus battery life is abysmal.

rosser3• 13 years ago

All the following links were found by searching since your comment was posted:

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=289711

https://github.com/ah-/gmux-scripts

http://www.linuxine.com/story/how-do-i-use-integrated-intel-...

http://askubuntu.com/questions/126862/how-to-use-integrated-...

I make no warranty that the linked recipes, scripts, or suggestions work, but your "you wish" warrants refutation.

muyuu2• 13 years ago

System 76 are offering new configurations and frankly they seem fantastic.

I haven't ordered yet because I'm in the UK and I have to find out about VAT and tariffs (last time I ordered straight from the US I was charged them and a fine on top, and extortionate "processing charges"). Otherwise I'd be ordering straight away even with a 20% VAT on top.

gamache• 13 years ago

Data point: I bought a System 76 Ubuntu netbook 2-3 years ago and it was garbage. Bad power management, finicky trackpad, sticky keys on the tiny keyboard. I hated using it (so I didn't).

adamnemecek• 13 years ago

You are right, from now on, I will not mind that running Linux on a laptop drains the battery in less than an hour but will instead appreciate the fact that it has MN103 CPU architecture support.

humanfromearth• 13 years ago

Because Xcode. Some of us need to iOS apps too even if it's not our first priority. At this moment the only sane way to do that is having OSX installed on a Mac.

coldtea8• 13 years ago

Because of XCode?

Not so sure.

Developers for all kind of stuff use OS X. Any conference, from Google IO to Oracle or Apache (Java) stuff, to RoR have tons of developers, the majority actually, running OS X. Even Rob Pike uses OS X. Even Linus Torvalds (although he just uses the Mac, not the OS, of course).

And most of them do not deploy anything to iOS.

The use OS X because it's a fine UNIX and it has all the commercial stuff they want to use (Adobe, Office, etc) and all the multimedia stuff they want to use too. And it has nice hardware to boot (not CPU or price wise: overall quality wise, from sturdiness to weight, and from display quality to driver support).

ics• 13 years ago

I don't think your parent was suggesting Xcode is the reason, just one that hadn't yet been brought up...

coldtea8• 13 years ago

This is a double standard. To have its “great” hardware support, a given release of OS X has to support a few dozen hardware configurations.

Not really. It's the field Linux choose to play.

But let's constrain it if you like.

Does Linux have "better hardware support" than OS X for even a single, specific, hardware product from a specified vendor?

At least for my multimedia work, the answer is a resounding no.

sciurus2• 13 years ago

Six years ago I bought an Inspiron 14 that Dell sold with Ubuntu. A few weeks ago I got an XPS 13, the model Dell now sells with Ubuntu (although I didn't purchase the developer version because it had a longer shipping time and I needed it ASAP). Unfortunately, even on this "reference" hardware there are many frustrations.

I installed 64-bit Ubuntu 13.04. Supposedly all of the special tweaks Dell makes to the version of Ubuntu 12.04 they install on the developer edition are included in 13.04. At first, I was unable to boot the installer; I had to switch the boot mode to Legacy from UEFI. Graphics don't work at the login screen; you have to switch to another virtual console and restart LightDM or just enable automatic login. Adjusting the display brightness doesn't work. If I connect it to my TV, X locks up until I disconnect it. Some of Unity's multitouch gestures work, but some don't. I haven't found any way to configure the touchpad; I'd really like to be able to middle-click.

Today I hooked up my Nexus 4. Rhythmbox, Ubuntu's default media player, sees it as an MTP device but locks up and crashes if you try to transfer any music to it. I switched my Nexus 4 from MTP to PTP mode and fired up Shotwell, Ubuntu's default photo manager. It saw the Nexus 4 as a camera but reported an error and failed when I tried to import my photos from it. At least I can transfer files to and from it using the file manager, but if I try to open any files without copying them to my computer first, it fails.

steveklabnik8• 13 years ago

If you didn't buy the version with the OS installed, then it's not the same comparison.

When you buy a MacBook, OS X is already installed and working. I don't know a whole lot about the Dells, but isn't the same true otherwise?

herge2• 13 years ago

I bought a Macbook Pro with OSX 10.8 already installed, and I am pretty sure I will not have the same problems as sciurus if I buy 10.9.

Dell could offer support for 13.04, or maybe Canonical could work to better support one of the few laptops out there with ubuntu on it out of the box.

sciurus2• 13 years ago

And if I wipe a MacBook's hard drive, I'll be able to reinstall and everything will still be working.

Anyway, the blog post I was responding to doesn't make this distinction. It argued that there are certain laptop models that you can purchase and expect to be as well supported by a Linux distribution as Apple hardware is by OS X. Other people have pointed out that this isn't true for many Thinkpads. I wanted to let people know that even the Dell hardware he mentioned has problems.

Additionally, I wanted to point out that it isn't just a question of compatibility with the computer itself. There are many peripheral devices, like smartphones, that matter.

ultimoo• 13 years ago

I'm yet to come across a developer who claimed that OS X has better hardware support than GNU/Linux. I have however come across plenty stating that they pay top dollar for Apple because they manufacture both -- the hardware and the software. Which is perfectly fine.

lyudmil• 13 years ago

This is a double standard. To have its “great” hardware support, a given release of OS X has to support a few dozen hardware configurations.

Agreed. Linux and Windows, as operating systems, are solving a much different and more difficult problem than OS X is. You can get them to run on a wide variety of hardware relatively easily. By that metric, both Windows and Linux have "better hardware support" than OS X.

The problem is this metric is completely useless to me. When I turn on my machine, I do it in order to get work done. This means I need to be able to go online for project management and responding to emails, I need to be able to call my clients using their preferred VoIP service, I need to run text editors, IDEs, and various virtual machines, interpreters, compilers, and servers, I need to be able to hook into an iPhone or Android phone and load software onto it, I need to be able to quickly and painlessly install libraries, software, and developer tools, I need to be able to edit video and audio, and I need to have the confidence that if I had to learn a new skill or assumed a new responsibility, I'll spend most of my time learning rather than setting my system up.

I care about my system's hardware support as far as it allows me to do these things quickly and painlessly. I've had Linux and Windows machines before and I've done all I've needed to do on them, but I've never accomplished my work as effortlessly as on a Mac. I think that's what geeks mean when they say "better hardware support". They mean "fewer unforeseen setup-related problems". That's a metric I care deeply about.

shurcooL• 13 years ago

No, they're solving the exact same problem: to provide a good computing experience.

Now, how they go about solving that same problem is radically different. Windows and Linux tries to support as much hardware as possible and be general. OS X tries to limit scope to own MacBook hardware only, and benefit from the advantages of that approach as much as it can (clearly, it has some disadvantages it suffers from too).

I'm not sure it's easy to say which approach is more difficult overall. Linux and Windows approach is clearly much more difficult on the software side. However, OS X has to have is own hardware made by the same company. If Apple falls behind in hardware, OS X is screwed. So there's a lot more importance and difficulty in making sure the hardware is great (if a Dell makes bad hardware, Linux and Windows can be okay as long as any other hardware company makes something good).

m0skit03• 13 years ago

Actually Apple doesn't make the hardware anymore, it relies on external companies to do so.

virtualwhys7• 13 years ago

1) go online for project management and responding to emails

check

2) call my clients using their preferred VoIP service

Skype, GoogleTalk maybe? Go2Meeting crashed like a bi-atch on OSX for me.

3) run text editors, IDEs, and various virtual machines, interpreters, compilers, and servers

complete nonsense if you're insinuating that OSX has better support for the above than Linux (you guys just got a non-archaic JDK for example, curious which compilers you're using, the Ruby "compiler" ;-))

4) hook into an iPhone or Android phone and load software onto it

Can certainly do that with Android; OSX VM for iPhone

5) quickly and painlessly install libraries, software, and developer tools

yum, apt, and so on

6) edit video and audio

Macs are great for artists and musicians; case in point, my dad's had a Mac since the early 90s, he does video editing and audio editing (producer and drummer)

7) if I had to learn a new skill or assumed a new responsibility, I'll spend most of my time learning rather than setting my system up.

I mentioned passive non-learning in regard to the OSX experience in another comment. I'd argue that, on the contrary, Linux users, having an understanding of their system beyond the GUI, are actually better suited toward learning new skills, assuming that skill is systems-based of course; if it involves click-click-clicking things, that's another "skill"

pjmlp• 13 years ago

Where can you use a legal OS X VM?

wavesum2• 13 years ago

Did not read. How is this news? People run Linux on their alarm clocks whereas OSX is made to work with the few different hardwares Apple makes.

steveklabnik8• 13 years ago

Because you didn't read, you missed the entire point of the article, which directly addresses your comment.

wavesum2• 13 years ago

Well, now that I did and I want my 10 minutes back. I disagree though with you there about this article dirctly addressing my comment. It directly addresses a strawman argument the author pulls out of air in the beginning. I think everyone agrees that Linux supports more hardware and OSX supports less. And by doing this they can support in a better way. Don't you?

venomsnake• 13 years ago

My experience consist of few debian installs back in the day, a lot of life boot CD to risque the data from dead windows laptops with dd nc and currently my main is Arch linux desktop. The occasional persistent mint USB flash for remote offices. And the occasional install and config of testing server environments.

No issues with hardware support at all. But there is very steep learning curve - I think that is the main thing the community must focus on. Just introduce new users to the system gently. I have few requests recently about migrating to linux after the NSA stuff blew up. And sadly have to tell the people not yet unless you like to get your hands dirty.

keithpeter• 13 years ago

Your use cases for Linux would seem to call for a steep learning curve with the exception of the Mint bootable USB.

$ConsumerDistro of your choice on recentish laptop (not Optimus) should require less knowledge.

$ConsumerDistro = [Mint|Ubuntu LTS|Lubuntu] != [Arch|Slackware]

CentOS, Stella, Debian stock and FedoraRecent almost make it to consumer level but not quite in my opinion.

jfarmer5• 13 years ago

This is silly. Although I'm sure it's gotten much better since I regularly used Linux on the desktop, you always had to do some amount of due diligence about what hardware worked well with it and what hardware didn't.

For example, because I use OS X, I can go to any store, purchase my choice of Lexmark printer, and be on my merry way with a minimal amount of checking. The fact that I have to know that there's a "reference platform" is the problem. I don't want to have to think about that crap. I don't have to with my Mac. I want to save my mental cycles for important things, not struggling with which printer to purchase.

Or I can put it in simpler terms. There's a concrete social cost to using Linux on the Desktop. Let's say I want a printer for Christmas. If I'm running the amount of information I need to give my family in order for them to buy me one that works is orders of magnitude smaller than if I'm running Linux.

In fact, I'd sound like some sort of bizarro printer snob when I make my request. "If you're looking at Lexmark printers, these models work, these ones don't. HP is good, but not models like X, Y, and Z."

Now, like I said, it's been several years since I regularly used Linux on the desktop. I'm sure it's better. But the problem is not that there aren't known-good Linux configurations. It's that (1) those configurations are essentially arbitrary and therefore not obvious and (2) they require time and energy to learn (memorize, really).

If it's changed, that's great, but that's also part of the problem. Now I not only have to keep a set of known-good configurations in my head but a rolling changelog, too, to make sure my knowledge is up-to-date.

I switched from Linux to OS X precisely because I decided my mental energy was better spent on other things than remembering, "Oh yeah, the Dell Lenovo X876123 mark 10 is a known-good Linux laptop."

I'll add that I'm sure in aggregate Linux supports a much wider range of hardware than OS X. That's great! That's why Linux is kicking ass in all sorts of non-desktop markets like mobile devices, embedded systems, servers, etc. But there is an inherent tension in an OS that's optimizing for that vs. constraining itself to the desktop and the desktop only.

perssontm• 13 years ago

You have a valid point, but theres another side to it. The hardware that works great are the hardware that developers tend to use. The worst low-end lexmarks which are barely good enough for one cartridge cycle is not something any computer enthusiast/programmer would spend time on makeing work.

Since I switched to linux on my laptop 100%, around 2003 somewhere, I always tried to pick hardware which is professional grade, not home/consumer end. Although a bit more pricey to start with but most of the things have lasted since then as well.

jfarmer5• 13 years ago

Sure. But still, let's imagine I did professional work that required professional hardware. Further, let's imagine that Linux supported my current setup perfectly.

My setup won't be my setup forever. Maybe some new hardware comes out and I want to experiment with it. Will it work with Linux? Will the person making that hardware have Linux in mind when they're building it? If my current hardware breaks, will it be easy for me to find suitable replacement quickly? As in same-day quickly?

Is memorizing the list of "professional-grade" hardware that works with Linux -- or perhaps just the list of exceptions if that's the smaller list -- worth my time as a professional?

For you, the answer to all these questions might be "yes" or even "yes, given how much I care about using Linux for other reasons." That's great.

However, the mere fact that one has to consider these questions increases the cost of adoption. It shouldn't therefore be a surprise that fewer people use the platform as a result or that people point out this frustrates them. Maybe they even use tricky phrases like "hardware support" which can mean many things to many people to describe their frustration.

If you want to think about it algorithmically, maybe try this picture. You have two points A and B on a map with varied terrain and a path-finding algorithm. You have N seconds to get from A to B, including the amount of time it takes to find a path.

You won't be able to take fastest path if it takes longer than N seconds to find that path -- by that point you'll be out of time. Instead, the naïve solution would be to take the first path P where the time searching for P plus the time to traverse P is <= N, assuming you can find one. Maybe you modify this meta-algorithm slightly so that once you find a P, if the time spent so far plus the time to traverse P is M < N you spend another N - M seconds looking for a second, possibly-shorter path.

Those "N - M" seconds are really important in consumer psychology. If you've found multiple options and weighed them you'll feel much more comfortable in your decision. That comfort translates into confidence in the underlying platform.

On Linux the "time searching for P" is much larger than OS X, but the original article is pretending as if it's only the existence of a fast-enough path that matters. It's not, especially if the time to find the right path dwarfs the amount of time you have to spend on the problem or it results in you being able to weigh as many options as you would on another platform.

For me, personally, as someone who values his own attention very, very highly, my threshold for "time spent searching for P" is incredibly low.

brown• 13 years ago

I generally agree with your main point (that knowing about reference hardware is burdensome).

However, your specific example (printers) is outdated. Both Linux and OSX use CUPS, which was acquired by Apple in 2007. Linux printer support is pretty spectacular these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS#History

tammer• 13 years ago

Spectacular, but not reference. General printing is OK for almost any printer, but support for advanced features is limited (in my experience).

Samuel_Michon• 13 years ago

CUPS drivers are only used on OS X when there aren’t any official drivers made available by the vendor. That’s mostly the case for very old printers (pre-OS X or non-USB). With CUPS drivers, you can get a printer to work, but the experience is nowhere near as good as using official drivers. So no, printer support on OS X and Linux is not equal.

jfarmer5• 13 years ago

Sure. I've used Linux on the desktop since then. Even with printers it was still hit or miss. CUPS just acted as a catch-all, lowest-common-denominator of printing.

I'm pretty familiar with CUPS, too. I helped build a school-wide printing system at my university based off CUPS as part of my job at the time. It had to interface with our internal authentication system, debit student printing credits, and interface with dozens of types of printers across campus.

beedogs• 13 years ago

This comment was probably more relevant 10 years ago.

Nursie2• 13 years ago

For all your nonsense, I've had far less trouble getting devices to work with linux than any other OS over the last few years. Device support on Linux just works more often than it does for Windows or Mac OS these days. And I'm including laptops.

calinet64• 13 years ago

I think we're within the margin of error here. All devices I've ever bought for Mac "just work." Call it anecdotal, but that's the case.

Good for Linux if it has also reached that point, but don't call OSX worse when it isn't.

logicallee• 13 years ago

To be fair, by that argument it's even better to use Windows.

hornetblack2• 13 years ago

Windows 8 seems to have magical printer support. My printer was just there, I could print... no anything required. It seemed to install the drivers as soon as it saw it on the network. (Apparently this isn't so nice if the computer reboots when trying to install drivers magically)

jfarmer5• 13 years ago

Only if that's the only dimension you care about. It's one dimension and it's an important dimension (for me). More important than that (for me) is "it should be Unix-like and I should have easy access to a typical Unix toolchain."

My experience is that for the last 5 years OS X and Windows are in roughly the same ballpark in terms of how much I have to think about non-software issues, although Windows is better in that dimension, as you say. Linux is not really in the same ballpark, or at best it's way out in the nosebleed section.

virtualritz• 13 years ago

Printing? In 2013? This is the least relevant part of hardware support for me since about a decade, on any OS. And that goes for pretty much anyone of my friends too, no one owns printers any more these days. A decade, more or less, is how long I haven't, personally, needed a printer and hence not owned one. So while I can't counter your claims, I couldn't care less. And all the places I worked @ in the last decade, in VFX, ran their printers on queues on CUPS on Linux servers. They always worked, on the utterly rare occasions that I still needed to kill trees to rely information to some entity stuck in the past. ;)

How about sth. just as preposterous an example: I salvaged a +20 years old 9 needle printer (Star NL-10) from a stash of hard rubbish two months ago. I got it to work w/o problems on Linux (trivia: I used turpentine on the ribbon cassette to get the ink 'flowing' again). I still can't get the thing to do anything sensible when I attach it to my Retina MacBook Pro running the latest and greatest OS X. :P

parasubvert• 13 years ago

Printers are still essential for nearly everyone I know: recipes (for those without an iPad), tickets to concerts/theatres/movies, flight boarding passes (these will fade as smartphones become more applicable), legal documents that require signatures, and photos!

leoedin• 13 years ago

It's not particularly bizarre to be a printer snob. If I were to buy a printer today, even without considering drivers I'd probably narrow it down to 2 or 3 options.

Either way, I've never had any issues with any printers I've thrown at Linux. There are issues with more obscure devices, but equally in the world of SoCs and generic mass storage/input devices that we live in I have far fewer expansion cards and peripherals than ever before, and those that I have use pretty standard protocols for communication.

bingedrinker2• 13 years ago

If you mean "better" as in quantitatively more, then yes.

The quality of those drivers are far, far worse than the OSX drivers.

Also, how is it surprising that OSX has few drivers, when OSX is meant for very specific Apple-designed hardware?

Anyway. I'm running Ubuntu on a new Macbook Air (5,1), and both the touchpad and the Wifi drivers are an absolute atrocity on Linux.

A few things just doesn't work, like the keyboard backlight.

The LCD backlight is also broken, half the time you have to unplug and replug the power to get the backlight to light up after automatic dimming, for some reason.

As for wifi, I quote, live, from my syslog: Jun 16 22:27:45 laptop kernel: [28768.034285] brcmsmac bcma0:0: brcms_c_ampdu_dotxstatus_complete: Pkt tx suppressed, illegal channel possibly 48 Jun 16 22:27:45 laptop kernel: [28768.035618] brcmsmac bcma0:0: brcms_c_ampdu_dotxstatus_complete: Pkt tx suppressed, illegal channel possibly 48 Jun 16 22:27:45 laptop kernel: [28768.036427] brcmsmac bcma0:0: brcms_c_ampdu_dotxstatus_complete: Pkt tx suppressed, illegal channel possibly 48 ... etc ...

Constant disconnects, poor speed. Switch to the proprietary driver and bandwidth is 2-3x better and the disconnects disappear, though.

The trackpad issues seem unfixable, even though there are lots of options to fiddle with. The quality is just poor or the driver is not designed to work with the type of touchpad that the Mac has. Tapping causes the cursor to move to a new position before doing a click, left-clicking causes the cursor to zoom to the bottom left of the screen, etc. etc. etc. If the precision of the Mac touchpad driver is index 100, I would give the Linux driver a score of 5.

bingedrinker2• 13 years ago

(kernel 3.8.0-25-generic, hardware MacBookAir5,1)

virtualwhys7• 13 years ago

Linux (Fedora 18) works a charm on Dell Precision laptops, powerhouse machines at that, can go 32GB RAM like Thinkpad 530Ws, and 3X SSD if you're so inclined (probably coming in sub MBP price to boot).

Had some hiccups with previous Sony Z-series laptop, but one nice thing about switching machines with Linux is that X11 config settings for your peripherals (trackball, wireless KB, etc.) all apply to the new machine.

The biggest headache has been Nvidia, forcing max power consumption (and heat generation) with multi-monitor setups (of course, IIRC that affects all laptop makes, Macs included).

Fortunately Dell Precisions have 2X fans (CPU & GPU) so cool & quiet overall, just not a big fan of Nvidia, would have a near passively cooled machine were it not for the multi-monitor max power issue.

parennoob• 13 years ago

People use OSX cause it has really good hardware which has good enough software support for the things more people do. I am aware this is probably going to sound along the lines of groupthink, but if there are a lot of people doing this, there must be a good reason.

In my case (and I suspect the case for a lot of folks based on conversations within the place I work at), the sweet spot for OSX is that the hardware is amazing , and the OS is just good enough. I work at a place full of Unix heads, and we all deploy to Linux, but use OSX on our MBP laptops. Software is just one part of the equation, but how your laptop feels when you pick it up and take it to a free working space matters. I guess the Thinkpad does hold up in this regard, but MBP-equivalent Thinkpads are typically more expensive.

I wonder if Avdi has tried using the Dell XPS that he mentions in the article. One of my fellow devs got it a few weeks ago and I tried it. The keyboard on that thing is plasticky and feels weak to the touch, unlike the solid aluminum of the Macbook Pro. I would never get it over an MBP.

Now if Apple changes the core functionality of OSX in a way that hurts dev tools that most people use, they will migrate away. I already see this in my workplace where people are still sticking with Snow Leopard till Apple forces them to upgrade. Why? Because it is good enough.

virtualwhys7• 13 years ago

"MBP-equivalent Thinkpads are typically more expensive"

More expensive than what? MBP with 2.8Ghz, 16GB runs at least $3K.

With the exception of the screen, hardware-wise Thinkpads and Dell Precisions are far superior to MBPs. Max 16GB RAM and can't even stick an i7 extreme CPU in MBPs.

Whoops, 17" MBP, sorry, that's been discontinued -- as a Mac user you have NO choice; the hardware and software offerings are fixed in stone.

bdcravens4• 13 years ago

I'd argue that the trackpad on MBP's and Airs is the best anywhere. Every other computer I've ever used resulted in funky stray swipes, sometimes even when I hit a key near the trackpad. (Haven't tried a Dell Precision's, and I haven't had a Trackpad since the IBM days)

I believe the X1, which Avdi referenced, maxed at 8GB? (same as Air) The W series of course can have crazy hardware in it, but it's quite the anomaly in the industry.

AurelioB• 13 years ago

When people refers to hardware support as a problem for Linux, when compared to OS X, they usually don't care if it's due to Apple manufacturing both hardware and software. They just care about what works and what doesn't out of the box.

the thing is people buy products. Apple offers a product with a beautiful aluminium body, great battery life and a great OS that just works. Linux fails to offer that, and will continue to fail at offering that, just because that's not their focus.

In my opinion, we're comparing apples with oranges.

shalmanese• 13 years ago

Linux doesn't "just work" on Thinkpads either. Here's a list of all the known linux incompatibilities with Thinkpads:

http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Known_Problems

mjg592• 13 years ago

None of those issues refer to current models.

jlgreco4• 13 years ago

Additionally, at least several of those just seem to be known hardware bugs or failure modes.

vacri7• 13 years ago

'Dead pixels' is a linux incompatibility? Large harddrives not being seen by the BIOS of a very old model? How is that linux's fault if the machine can't even start to read the drive?

That's a list of Thinkpad issues, they're not all linux-on-thinkpad issues. You could make one for every brand - Macbook pros would have "sometimes catch fire", from a story in this thread.

epsylon• 13 years ago

There is no single "Linux", nor there is a single "Thinkpad".

I have Ubuntu 12.04 on my Lenovo W500 and it works flawlessly. Everything worked out of the box — including graphics, wifi and ethernet, touchpad, ACPI keys and power saving options and sleep / hibernation. Conclusion : YMMV.

rsync2• 13 years ago

There's another issue here, and I digress, but...

When I first switched to OSX, it was because there was finally a UNIX system that would "just work" with a printer, or whatever, just like the author describes. Even more importantly, there was a UNIX system with a web browser that "just worked" - no more days of hacking to get a PDF to show up properly, or a flash animation, etc.

Now, in 2013, I am willing to stipulate that the author is correct, and hardware support is no longer an issue with Linux, etc. So why am I staying with OSX ?

Because of the virtualization licensing.

No matter what platform I choose to run myself (and I would prefer a free OS) I absolutely need to virtualize OSX. And OSX is the only system I can do that on.[1]

So that's that. As odd as it seems, it is the OS licensing of an OS I don't even care to run that forces me to run it.

[1] Yes, I know all about it. No, I do not have time to hack around the restrictions and trick vmware, etc. I wish I did. I don't.

bdcravens4• 13 years ago

For me, it's certain pieces of software, like OmniFocus and Transmit. (Went through the same thing when deciding between iPhone and the S3, both of which I own, and one sits in a drawer to only be brought out for testing.) I know there's always someone who can name some random app in the same category, but they're usually very weak substitutes.

virtualwhys7• 13 years ago

That is indeed an odd reason for sticking with OSX.

Check it out: VMware Converter

Can clone Windows and Linux just fine; in fact I have a dual boot system (need bootable Windows for BIOS/Firmware upgrades/(Nvidia)mods) with 2003 server (that's my laptop OS from 2005 sill kicking), Win 7, and OSX VMs.

There is no hacking around things; it's only with OSX where virtualizing it is a bi-atch (as of 2 years ago at any rate)

akavlie• 13 years ago

Interesting... because I got a ThinkPad to run Ubuntu on a couple of years ago. And you know what? It was extremely unstable. It would freeze and crash maybe 20 - 25% of the time I disconnected an external display, and from time to time at random, for no good reason.

The multi-display support is also broken (the smaller display takes on same dimensions as the larger, with hidden areas of the desktop), but that's another matter.

Swannie• 13 years ago

May be a firmware/hardware issue, as I've had similar issues on Win 7, both with the screen disconnect and the projector display issues.

Tomdarkness• 13 years ago

"Or are you dual-booting it on your hand-built gaming rig?"

Actually I am. Despite the fact you can get hardware (motherboards, RAM, drives, etc.) from many different manufacturers the "core" hardware pretty much follows a set of strict standards. Ever since Apple moved to Intel CPU based hardware they also made OS X compatible with those same standards (AHCI, ACPI, etc.). Sure, you might have the odd issue with certain configurations but in general modern Intel based desktop PCs are fairly straightforward to run OS X on.

The same applies for the Linux Kernel, except it supports far more standards and architectures then OS X.

But anyway I suppose my point is that the OS will pretty much run in most cases. However, your non-standard additional hardware (wireless adapters, your funky magic PCIe card, etc.) that requires drivers is not really because Linux, Windows or OS X does not support that hardware but rather the manufacturer of said devices choice not to support that OS. Don't complain that Linux or whatever does not support your hardware but rather complain that the manufacturer chose not to support Linux or use some kind of common standard.

Sure, common hardware or hardware that follows a standard might have a driver written by Microsoft or the linux kernel devs but most of the time the driver is written by those who created the hardware. For example it would be silly to blame Microsoft saying Windows does not support a Nvidia graphics card if Nvidia never released Windows drivers for that card. Likewise it would be silly to blame Apple if I bought some TV tuner, or similar PCI(e) card, and found it did not work in my Mac Pro.

Fomite• 13 years ago

I think the relevant claim is "Does the OS work well with the hardware it claims to support".

For OS X, the answer to this is yes. For Linux, the answer is "Maybe, with some tinkering".

epynonymous• 13 years ago

why not use the best of both worlds, i.e. run both linux and os x at the same time via virtualization. i develop rails on ubuntu in a virtual machine on top of os x, works great, but then again i do have 16G memory, 8G is probably the minimum. and there are great tools to get ruby 1.9+ working on mac, but i prefer to run code on the production os so running virtualbox, vmware fusion, or parallels works wonders, try it out.

namuol• 13 years ago

Um, obviously Linux has "better" hardware support since OS X wasn't meant to run on more than a few different machines.

This isn't a design flaw so much as a circumstantial necessity. I agree with the article's point, but is this really a common refrain?

As an interesting aside, I wrote this comment from Ubuntu running on a ThinkPad. Touche.

lanna• 13 years ago

Linux doesn't have better hardware support than OS X. Linux may support more pieces of hardware than OS X, but whatever OS X supports is better supported.

songco• 13 years ago

Except video card..

jgh• 13 years ago

You know, for all the arguments about why to use OSX over Linux I'd never think that hardware support would be one of them, considering OSX is designed to run on Macs with a pretty limited scope of hardware.

Tloewald• 13 years ago

"Better" if by better one means "more".

mepcotterell• 13 years ago

Duh. Why is this even a story?

nkorth2• 13 years ago

Doesn't Linux technically have better hardware support than Windows, too? I've seen many laptops where a fresh install of Windows will be very broken until you load up the manufacturer's pile of drivers. Linux just has more useful built-in drivers, but I'd say that equals better hardware support.

goggles99• 13 years ago

This has been the case for over 10 years... thank you for breaking the news though...

anuraj• 13 years ago

That is quite understandable as OSX is designed to run on one hardware - that is Apple's. It is also the way, apple ensures that there is no hardware fragmentation.

moe• 13 years ago

That may be true. But OS X has the better hardware.

FatalBaboon• 13 years ago

Let us not forget that linux runs on other kinds of hardware. My Raspberry Pi runs Linux, wanna try OSX on it?

AlisdairO• 13 years ago

When I bought my Thinkpad W510, USB3 had recently come out, and the partially-implemented drivers the distros were shipping caused the machine not to be able to sleep. To say that Thinkpad support is equivalent to a reference implementation is overstating matters wildly - although the support is generally pretty damn good.

m0skit03• 13 years ago

Useless comment of the day: I was pretty sure to find all Apple hipster fanboys crying around here. And I was right. You guys are so predictable :D

calinet64• 13 years ago

The article calls out people for putting down Linux device support, and then adds this lovely disclaimer:

"If you use Linux and like to advocate for its use, it’s time to stop telling people they should try it and it’ll Just Work. Because it won’t. It’ll probably Mostly Work. And the remaining 5% of not-workiness will cause yet another person to start propagating the “Linux has bad hardware support” meme."

I'm sorry, but if 5% of devices don't just work, then you have no place writing this article, and you've just discovered exactly why that "Linux has no hardware support" meme exists.

"But make sure they know that for best experience, they will have to research and choose a known-good configuration. Just like they did when picking out their shiny Mac."

In other words, you have to do more work to get it to work. In other words, it does not "just work." In other words, Linux does not have better hardware support than OSX, OSX just has better hardware.

Don't you get it? That's exactly why people buy Macs: so they don't have to think about that. Start a company that makes preconfigured Linux desktops that "just work" if you want, but don't go decrying a whole platform for having it all figured out. If you're saying it's better "if only people would just do their research" then you really don't get it.

nkorth2• 13 years ago

In other words, you have to do more work to get it to work.

Last I checked, making a Hackintosh was a lot of work (when it's even possible). And that's what happens when installing OS X on 95% of hardware.

calinet64• 13 years ago

That's why you don't make Hackintoshes. :)

You could say we're comparing Apples and Oranges here. It's not even worth the comparison. Mac is a better experience because it's integrated, but it will never have generic hardware support. Linux has open, generic support for a lot of hardware, but it will never "just work." Pick one.

trebor• 13 years ago

This was one of the reasons why I did not switch to Linux, but switched to OS X. The factor of "just buy it and it works" is really appealing, especially from my Windows system-builder past. (I reinstalled Windows XP 6x in about a month to find what I was installing that broke OLE, and totally broke my only school computer's ability to launch word processors.)

But then again, OS X has good hardware support because it only supports the kind of hardware that Apple sells. They can afford to do the work to fully support each piece of hardware they add, rather than the full breadth of the computer spectrum.

jackcviers3• 13 years ago

Hardware just works on OSX. I have never been required to compile any drivers from source for OSX. I have had to compile drivers from source for Linux for: Keyboard - Black Widow Anasazi; Wireless-N dual band usb dongles... in the last year.

the keyboard and the dongles worked out of the box, but both were missing some of the functionality they have on other os'.

Specifically, the usb dongles couldn't work on their 5ghz band. The driver that was compatible with their chipsets needed to be manually updated because the hw ids weren't in the headers for the driver. The keyboard has additional keys that were unrecognized by Linux that had to be made available.

support is likewise troublesome. You can use these things-just not be fully as on OSX.

FollowSteph3• 13 years ago

What about the fact that apple only supports their hardware for 3-4 years then you're done...

guilhermetk• 13 years ago

I had a Dell Vostro 1500 (made in Brazil) and I ran at least 4 different releases of Ubuntu. The only issue I had was with my graphic card, I never managed to setup an external display and I spent hours trying to find the solution. Other than that everything ran smoothly.

edude03• 13 years ago

I think the ultimate crux of the argument Linux people make is that linux is "good enough". Yes there are solutions for everything you may want to do on Linux however when you tell me I should virtualize windows to run photoshop or watch netflix you should realize that Linux doesn't have a good solution for most things.

It's the same with hardware, not long after the Surface Pro was released someone installed ubuntu and said that linux ran perfectly on it. The touchscreen, Pen, Sound, Wifi, and Bluetooth didn't work but it was "good enough" for what he wanted to do (hold down a stack of papers?). Yes this is one random persons anecdote but I feel like the majority of the Linux community has this attitude and that's what ultimately puts Mac (and even Windows in some cases) ahead of Linux in hardware support.

Linux has better hardware support than OS X

Related Stories