Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux has better hardware support than OS X

devblog.avdi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 218 posts

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#101

Post by Swannie »

akavlie wrote: post #86

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 anot…

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.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#102

Post by ownagefool »

rubiquity wrote: post #17

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 m…

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

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#103

Post by coldtea »

jlgreco wrote: post #95
coldtea wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do. Most stuff in my field of multimedia, from top notch quality items available for other platforms (Apogee stuff, UAD Apollo, Black Magic Cinema camera) to prosumer products, including many consumer stuff which only have some community drivers that don't let you use all the functionality.

Is that stuff hardware from Lenovo? I am not familiar with any of it but briefly googling it, it does not seem to be. I think you might be misunderstanding the claim that is being made.

Huh? The claim was just that Linux has good working drivers for the standard Lenovo parts? Trackpad, monitor, GPU, HD controller, sleep/wake-up, etc?

That's barebones basic stuff. Of course that should work out of the box...

It's all the other stuff driver-wise that matters...

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#104

Post by jlgreco »

coldtea wrote: post #103
jlgreco wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that stuff hardware from Lenovo? I am not familiar with any of it but briefly googling it, it does not seem to be. I think you might be misunderstanding the claim that is being made.

Huh? The claim was just that Linux has good working drivers for the standard Lenovo parts? Trackpad, monitor, GPU, HD controller, sleep/wake-up, etc? That's barebones basic stuff. Of course that should work out of the box... It's all the other stuff driver-wise that matters...

That is the claim, and support for that is often claimed to be lacking. The point is that this is false.

I don't think anybody has ever claimed that linux has good support for specialist multi-media hardware.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#105

Post by rosser »

coldtea wrote: post #103
jlgreco wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that stuff hardware from Lenovo? I am not familiar with any of it but briefly googling it, it does not seem to be. I think you might be misunderstanding the claim that is being made.

Huh? The claim was just that Linux has good working drivers for the standard Lenovo parts? Trackpad, monitor, GPU, HD controller, sleep/wake-up, etc? That's barebones basic stuff. Of course that should work out of the box... It's all the other stuff driver-wise that matters...

Yes, that was the claim.

The parallel to your argument is that people should blame Apple for random third-party hardware not working out of the box with OSX.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#106

Post by bdcravens »

jfarmer wrote: post #88
perssontm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

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 eas…

There was a time when "time spent searching for P" was much greater for Apple hardware than Wintel machines.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#107

Post by bdcravens »

rsync wrote: post #80

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 stipula…

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.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#108

Post by keeperofdakeys »

rsync wrote: post #76
edent wrote: post #28

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 p…

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.

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.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#109

Post by bdcravens »

virtualwhys wrote: post #87
parennoob wrote: post #74

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…

"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…

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.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#110

Post by tammer »

brown wrote: post #100
jfarmer wrote: post #68

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 "refe…

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

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