
Linux has better hardware support than OS X - steveklabnik
http://devblog.avdi.org/2013/06/16/linux-has-better-hardware-support-than-os-x/
======
edent
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.

~~~
rsync
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.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
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.

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

You're saying that OS X has better hardware support than Linux? :-)

------
jfarmer
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.

~~~
brown
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS#History)

~~~
Samuel_Michon
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.

------
city41
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.

~~~
fragmede
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.

~~~
coldtea
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.

~~~
coldtea
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.

~~~
jlgreco
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.

~~~
coldtea
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...

~~~
rosser
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.

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

No they shouldn't blame Apple.

But they should give minus points to OS X for "compatibility" when "random
third-party hardware does not work out of the box" with it.

And similarly: they should not "blame" Linux for "random third-party hardware
not working out of the box" with it, but they should give minus points to
Linux in the compatibility department.

------
lyudmil
> _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.

~~~
virtualwhys
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
Where can you use a legal OS X VM?

~~~
steveklabnik
I vaguely remember something about Mountain Lion's TOSes stating that an OS X
VM is acceptable on Apple hardware.

------
cabirum
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.

~~~
DanBC
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.

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

~~~
DanBC
The motherboard is an "Asus F1A55-M LX AMD A55 FM1 DDR3 mATX" which has
integrated "AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series Graphics". The monitor is an "Asus
VS229HR 21.5" LED IPS Monitor"

But the point is exactly that individuals will have varying experiences - I
have a printer that just works in one OS but is terrible in another; a gadget
that works as expected in one OS, but has better independently developed
drivers in a different OS and doesn't work at all on a third OS; etc.

I don't offer my experience as an example of Windows 7 having worse hardware
support than OS X or Linux.

------
driverdan
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.

~~~
eLobato
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.

~~~
virtualwhys
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.

~~~
eLobato
Ubuntu 13.04, which is smart enough to configure Bumblebee for you.

------
rsync
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.

~~~
bdcravens
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.

------
th0br0
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
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
Unfortunately Ingo has pretty much shitcanned any efforts to progress power
saving support for the forseeable future, so don't expect things to improve.

~~~
taeric
Any good links to read up on this?

~~~
kryptiskt
There's an LWN article:
[http://lwn.net/Articles/552885/](http://lwn.net/Articles/552885/)

------
sciurus
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.

~~~
steveklabnik
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?

~~~
herge
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.

~~~
steveklabnik
If a Dell was purchased with Ubuntu pre-installed, I'm sure that a `sudo apt-
get dist-upgrade` wouldn't bork during installation either.

~~~
herge
I think you mis-read sciurus' comment. He said that installing ubuntu 13.04
caused all sorts of problems. Are you saying he would not have had those
problems if he did 'sudo apt-get dist-upgrade'?

~~~
steveklabnik
Yes, being 'unable to boot the installer' would never happen, by definition.

------
calinet6
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.

~~~
nkorth
> 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.

~~~
calinet6
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.

------
rubiquity
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.

~~~
wmoxam
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 ...

~~~
rubiquity
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.

~~~
jlgreco
There is always pkgsrc. pkgsrc works, well, everywhere.

------
mseebach
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...](http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/make/Dell/?category=Desktop&category=Laptop&category=Netbook)

------
general_failure
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.

~~~
taeric
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?

~~~
kryten
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!

~~~
taeric
I know my wife wanted a windows computer specifically for Excel. She did not
realize it costs a good deal extra, so was delighted when I installed
LibreOffice. (Other computing devices are kindles. Had a chromebook for a
time.) So, there is still some desire for the basic programs. I agree that
LibreOffice is more than good enough for the task, though.

I don't think I could handle Explorer to support my workflow for managing
photos. And it is a simple workflow. (First, copy everything over, then go
through "flagging" all pictures I like, then go through flagged items and trim
duplicates or ones that just aren't as good, finally basic color correction
and upload somewhere for family.) I confess the shotwell program is not the
best. Though I can not say what it is I don't care for on it.

Glad to hear the printer situation has improved. I just remember having more
success with my Linux machines on just getting something printed. To the point
that it was highly frustrating that it would not just print in Windows.

Sorry to hear you have power management issues. I don't think I have hit
those. Though... I also do not make regular use of hibernating a computer.
What is the main advantage of that?

~~~
kryten
I used hibernate regularly until I got an SSD, mainly for convenience. I boot
in a few seconds now so it's a non issue.

~~~
taeric
I guess my question is what makes hibernate better than sleep? I mean, I
realize for extended periods it makes sense, but I have not had a time when I
would have needed the extra time a full hibernate would have afforded me.

Now, I have realized _massive_ increases in battery life by choosing to not
live life at full brightness. I have to confess I felt silly the first time I
finally lowered the brightness and saw how much of a difference that made on
battery life.

~~~
kryten
Hibernate is better than sleep because you have a better idea of what your
battery capacity is going to be when you wake it up!

------
Tomdarkness
"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.

------
bingedrinker
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.

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

------
venomsnake
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
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.

------
shalmanese
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](http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Known_Problems)

~~~
mjg59
None of those issues refer to current models.

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

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

~~~
DrJokepu
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.

------
namuol
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_.

------
edude03
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.

------
parennoob
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.

~~~
virtualwhys
"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.

~~~
bdcravens
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.

~~~
vacri
I have a personal issue with the mac trackpad - clickable at the bottom and
only the bottom? I understand it's their historical thing and not a genuine
issue, but it always throws me as an odd thing to do.

~~~
bdcravens
Interestingly enough, the Magic Trackpad (larger Bluetooth version) is
clickable on the entire surface.

------
primelens
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.

~~~
steveklabnik
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.

------
akavlie
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
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.

------
coldtea
> _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.

------
nkorth
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.

------
virtualwhys
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.

------
jackcviers3
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.

------
AurelioB
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.

------
humanfromearth
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.

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

------
wavesum
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.

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

~~~
wavesum
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?

------
AlisdairO
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.

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

------
ultimoo
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.

------
guilhermetk
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.

------
jgh
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.

------
anuraj
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.

------
lanna
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.

------
epynonymous
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.

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

------
m0skit0
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

------
FollowSteph3
What about the fact that apple only supports their hardware for 3-4 years then
you're done...

------
mepcotterell
Duh. Why is this even a story?

------
Fomite
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".

------
songco
Except video card..

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

------
goggles99
This has been the case for over 10 years... thank you for breaking the news
though...

------
adamnemecek
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.

/s

