Yet I see this sentiment all the time on, of all places, Hacker News. People absolutely convinced GNU/Linux is some arcane, unusable dark art. It's quite baffling to watch, really. Then again, most people don't install Windows and OS X on hardware as heterogenous and diverse as what GNU/Linux frequents.
If you can't even handle GNU/Linux, though, what does that say about people's receptiveness to research OS that completely shakes established paradigms? Are we just going to keep reinventing what is most convenient to our preestablished biases? Given the things coming out of GnomeOS and Freedesktop.org, it sure seems like it.
...then again, most people don't install Windows... on hardware
as heterogenous and diverse as what GNU/Linux frequents.
Leaving out the very micro (Raspberry Pi, etc.) and the very macro (supercomputing clusters) I highly, highly doubt that's the case.
Before you buy a computer you plan to install Linux on, you check the compatibility lists. Before you buy a laptop to run Linux on, you check whether Linux has drivers for the Wifi chipset. Buying a graphics card? Does Linux have drivers that can fully exploit it?
Arguments about Linux's alleged superior hardware compatibility seem to always be based on anecdotes about that one time a relative's Windows computer wouldn't talk to some printer.
Walk into any Fry's or other similar store, pick a random piece of hardware off the shelf, and there's a significantly better chance of it both a. working at all and b. being fully supported on Windows over Linux.
If you can't even handle GNU/Linux, though, what does that say about people's receptiveness to research OS that completely shakes established paradigms? Are we just going to keep reinventing what is most convenient to our preestablished biases? Given the things coming out of GnomeOS and Freedesktop.org, it sure seems like it.