Linux Hardware Support Myths and Legends

What always confounds me is how many "volunteer shills" swarm over FOSS-related stories to smear and denigrate FOSS, and explain how it just doesn't measure up to this or that proprietary option.

The strange thing is that most of them clearly have a lot less Linux/FOSS knowledge than they realize. In fact most of them haven't ever actually touched it. But they will loudly proclaim Linux's shortcomings, nonetheless, often claiming significant expertise while making claims that clearly demonstrate they don't actually have the expertise they lay claim to. (Sometimes they don't even have the expertise they claim with Windows, either).

Most of the rest once took a very casual, prejudicial stab at it without actually being prepared to learn something, and either gave up when it didn't work as expected, or with great effort wrestled it into a fragile state of temporary serviceability, by applying inappropriate approaches inspired by Windows-centric assumptions.

(There is an additional, rather separate category of commentators who do have some routine hands-on exposure to Red Hat (or even BSD) on the server, in a mixed environment, and maybe even tried installing the same version on a laptop, and thus are quite sure of their expertise -- it wouldn't be entirely fair to lump these fully together with the previous categories, but again, they don't really know what they're talking about, and clearly view the situation from a Windows-centric perspective.)

Of course there is the crowd that just blithely defines "quality" and "interoperability" chiefly in terms of familiarity and easy (regardless of cost) compatibility with Windows OSs and Windows-dependent applications. Thus, If Office documents are not 100% compatible with Open/Libre Office, this must by definition be interpreted as proof of the latter's inadequacy. if recent versions of AutoCAD don't run on Linux, this is considered a deficiency of Linux, not a deficiency or choice on the part of AutoDesk. These people frequently justify themselves as merely being "pragmatic".

The strange thing is that these people are so committed to slamming Linux and FOSS software -- to the extent that I have taken to calling these people "volunteer shills". They are (most of them, I believe) not being paid; Indeed, a lot of them are actually customers, paying relatively large amounts for Windows software out of their own pockets. It is amazing that they are so committed to defending these purchased products by so vociferously denigrating Linux and FOSS alternatives. I really have trouble understanding this behaviour.

I agree with everything you said, Bernard Swiss. I think sometimes it is fear of change.

Once upon a time I did five months of contract work for an insurance company. They decided to migrate as much of their infrastructure from Windows Server and Solaris to Red Hat for four reasons: improved security, improved reliability/uptime and no periodic need to reboot, less time spent on maintenance per server, and cost. They had significant experience and in house expertise with both operating systems and had made this decision after careful evaluation and study of how both were performing and being used in their environment.

The manager was quite certain that his network and/or Windows admins were a sharp bunch and more than up to the task. The company was willing to send these people to Red Hat training. There was one guy who, in most respects, was especially good. He had a very solid understanding of networking and was more than bright enough to make that transition. Instead, he announced, publicly, in front of the entire team, that he would rather resign than learn Linux. From what I was told later he eventually did just that.

I worked with this guy on some network issues. He could have moved to Linux without breaking much of a sweat. Sharp doesn't even begin to do him justice. Yet, in his fear of change, he would rather walk away from a high paying job that learn another OS. Never mind that having the Windows skillset and the networking skillset and the Linux skillset would have made him incredibly valuable to any company. This guy really was top notch and his fear got the best of him.

Oh, and just to tell you how unusual this guy was in terms of gifts and blessings, prior to his career in IT he was a professional baseball player who briefly pitched in the major leagues. You'd think someone like that wouldn't be afraid of any challenge and could overcome any obstacle, wouldn't you?

@Bernard: I don't know what the psychological classification for it is, but people will mentally go to great lengths to justify their past decisions, so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they made a poor decision and because they want to think that they made a very smart decision. So someone paying a lot of money for something (perhaps too much) will come up with all kinds of justifications for that decision, even if it means bashing the alternatives.

@caitlyn: I hate to defend a Windows fan, but I have two points here: one is exactly what gus3 said: I'll happily walk away from a job if staying means having to become a Windows expert and not use Linux any more, because I'd rather have a job I enjoy for the most part rather than a job working with something I hate. 2 is that walking away from a job is frequently a good career move. I'm not sure about IT specifically, but I'm a software engineer, and staying at one company for too long is generally a poor career move, as you don't get any raises beyond inflationary adjustments, but new people getting hired in are given "market rate" which is continually rising. So I've found it's generally good to switch jobs every 3-4 years or so. Of course, you have to balance this with how much you like your job, as a slightly lesser-paying job that you really enjoy is better than a slightly better-paying job that irks you or has a bad commute or you don't get along with the coworkers as well, etc. But if your job has taken a turn for the worse, you've been there a reasonable amount of time (at least 1 year), and you're confident there's other jobs out there you can jump to fairly quickly, then it's stupid to stick around. Finally, there's the issue of being a generalist vs. being a specialist. If your job is developing Windows software in an all Microsoft environment, you've built up a lot of domain knowledge about that which makes you valuable. If your company decides they're not doing that any more and want you to switch to something else, you're now back at square one, just like a kid out of college with zero experience. Sure, your prior experience may help you learn a different OS faster, but employers don't really think that way; they (esp. HR people) look at buzzwords on your resume and match those up to buzzwords on the job requisition. If doing Windows work is what you like to do, it just makes more sense to go to a company that does that. Personally, I do embedded Linux device driver work, mostly a lot of testing and debugging and porting. I've had recruiters try to interest me in jobs doing Windows device driver work, but why would I bother? My knowledge is all on Linux, and while the fundamentals may be mostly the same, the details are certainly not (the recruiters don't understand this, but the hiring managers probably do). And I have little trouble finding jobs in this line of work, so why would I waste my time learning the Windows side when I can instead increase my experience on the Linux side? I can come to a new job and start producing right away on Linux (and now Android, I've started working with that, but that isn't very different); if I tried to do Windows driver work, I'd be lost for a while, and it'd take me quite some time to learn all the ins and outs of the platform to get to where I am now on Linux.

Quoting:However, I do think "just works" on any old hardware is a goal that can never be reached.

@Caitlyn,

I would have agreed if you said "All" old hardware. I have yet to have a problem with 4 very old HP/Compaq desktops. They are 17, 15 Compaq Deskpros and 2 13 years old Compaq Evos. I have Kubunt 12.04 with KDE 4.8.3 running on all of them without any issues but very slow due to limited memory capacity & 1.0 GHz & 1.5GHz CPUs.

From my anecdotal experience, if the hardware is designed to standards, Linux won't have problems and will run fine without a fuss on many old hardware.

I also bought a Brother 2270WD laser printer to replace an HP LaserJet 4ML with network interface, Which I bought 17 years ago and just recently died. I don't recall how much it was (around $800). The 2270WD was only $80 from Newegg and it comes with Ethernet & wireless interfaces. I never had any issues with HP and I haven't had any with Brother so far.

The 2270WD came with support CDs for Windows & Apple, but not for Linux. They do have drivers for Linux on their web site though. Personally, that is not a big issue for me and many others who have experience, but why the double standard by vendors? What is so difficult or costly to prevent them from having full support for Linux just like they have for Apple? Aren't they both *nix based? It really is annoying and frustrating.

One thing everyone admits to about MS is that, it can create perceptions better than anyone else. Many of the bad perceptions about Linux were created by MS, its lackeys & paid shills. It also have been creating false perceptions about its user friendliness being so good. One example is related to hardware support. Anyone seen those Windows useless troubleshooting guides/scripts that appear to be helpful to solve problems and mostly failing to end up suggesting to call tech support? Very clever marketing ploys I would say.

Fettoosh wrote: One thing everyone admits to about MS is that, it can create perceptions better than anyone else. Many of the bad perceptions about Linux were created by MS, its lackeys & paid shills. It also have been creating false perceptions about its user friendliness being so good.

In his classic (and very entertainingly readable) book, In the Beginning Was the Command-line, Neal Stephenson (yes, that Neal Stephenson) argued that Microsoft is essentially in the same business as Disney (but Disney does it much better).

Neal Stephenson wrote: As I've explained, selling OSes for money is a basically untenable position, and the only way Apple and Microsoft can get away with it is by pursuing technological advancements as aggressively as they can, and by getting people to believe in, and to pay for, a particular image: in the case of Apple, that of the creative free thinker, and in the case of Microsoft, that of the respectable techno-bourgeois. Just like Disney, they're making money from selling an interface, a magic mirror. It has to be polished and seamless or else the whole illusion is ruined and the business plan vanishes like a mirage.

I have got to read that book again. It's become somewhat dated (BeOS was still a contender when he wrote it), but still a good read. I'm not sure where my Opaque Cellulose Format copy is, but fortunately it is also available free in digital form:

http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html (download) http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.sht... (html)

.