Hi experts, good day.

This is what I always heard and read from the Linux experts. That I don't need to install the drivers because Linux have it all.

Could somebody explain this to me?

I'll be waiting for your answers guys.

Take care and God bless.

Well, most of the time you don't have to install drivers. Other times, there are no drivers available.

But it is true that out of the box, the linux kernel supports more hardware than any other OS out there right now. Things have greatly improved and it's been several years since I've run into problems installing a device. The typical trouble spots in the past have been certain brands of wireless card (tho there is a workaround called ndiswrapper), certain brands of printers, and winmodems (dial up modems designed specifically for Windows OS). But if you research a bit before you install or purchase, you can easily get hardware that works with linux.

Hope this helps.

It is hard to imagine an operating system that would include all required drivers for all possible hardware and peripherals. Not even Linux is quite this advanced.....

The common things are included in most popular distros--especially if there is an open-source version. Some distros have different policies about including proprietary drivers.

Thanks Sir pixellany and pljvaldez. Can you give me an article or a link which proves that a Linux Kernel has included some drivers.

Just to prove to my acquaintances that you don't have to install the drivers.

I'll wait Sir. Thanks and God bless.

Just have them watch you do an installation---or do one for themselves. More importantly, why do you need to prove anything to other people? If they are interested, they can find out on their own. I have told people all manner of things about Linux, and I am typically not challenged on basic facts like this. If people are interested, they will look into it on their own. If they are not interested, they won't look at your "proof".

Dear Sir SHENGTON,

On your own Linux system, may I kindly request you to have a look into one of these directories: /lib/modules/<kernel_version>/kernel/drivers

All files which end in .ko in the sub-directories of that directory are drivers provided with Linux.

You should replace <kernel-version> by one of the actual kernel versions on your system.

Example:
Now this command:
shows you that there are 1494 drivers compiled as independent modules of the Linux kernel I am actually using and provided with it. This figure doesn't include many other drivers that are directly included in it. In fact this command:shows you that there are 4192 program files in the source of my Linux kernel with which you can make drivers.

You don't have to take why I say for granted though; feel free to issue similar commands on your own system and see what you get.

I hope you will consider this be an acceptable answer to your question. If not, let me know.

Cheers,

I heartily agree that you need not (and should not...) feel obligated to "prove" anything of this sort, to anyone at all.

Obviously, when hardware manufacturers prepare systems for retail sale, they equip them with Windows installations with standard configurations that they know will work. (Might not be the fastest or the best, but it won't generate expensive and useless tech-support calls...) But they prepare and ship Linux servers, too.

In fact, if you bought a straight-retail copy of Windows "off the shelf," that is designed for installation on a "bare machine," then you will find that it, too goes through a complex hardware detection process in order to construct its so-called "HAL," or "Hardware Abstraction Layer," which is (simplifying slightly...) its version of hardware drivers. On modern systems, that works well; on older ones or strange ones, it has problems.

You're really "comparing apples to oranges" when you compare (any installation that has been done for you, to (any) that has not...

And the time has long since passed, where Linux/Unix was thought to require any apologies at all.