Hi.
Gilbert Baron wrote:
>
> Is there any answer to this yet/ If not, what does one do with LINUX, just
> say to oneself ahh well, we don't support you modern and common hardware but
> that is ok, just use an older version. Boy that makes for confidence in this
> toy.
I have a great deal of confidence in this "toy".
One of the great aspects of this "toy" is that one can write one's own
drivers to solve one's problems. When new hardware comes out, try
finding a Micro$oft driver (especially for NT) until several MONTHS
after the event.
When a warning of a potential security hole is issued by CERT, a Linux
patch is generally available in HOURS. How long does it take Micro$oft?
Getting back to hardware, even if you don't have the knowledge to write
your own drivers (and let's face it, many users don't - including
myself!) they are often available fairly quickly - a lot quicker than
the equivalent Micro$oft patch.
Of course, there is another angle too. How much did your copy of Linux
cost you? My original copy cost me about $30 (I could have got it for
nothing off the 'net if I'd wanted) - all upgrades were free from the
'net. My office suite (and upgrades) were also free from the 'net.
Compare that to Micro$oft. What would it have cost me for a similar
route (Win95, upgraded to Win98, plus MS Office 95, upgraded to Office
97)? Add to that the other Windoze software, and the total cost is
rather more than I paid for this laptop!
Bearing that in mind, the difference in price for hardware known to work
with Linux is minimal.
You are not comparing like with like. I have a dual boot on this
machine (Win98/Linux Mandrake) as some of my clients are stuck with the
Micro$oft stuff. Linux consistantly runs faster than Windoze. Period.
Linux is also much more stable than Windoze. Period.
Regards,
Ozz.
