Ummm.....this is getting silly. There are so many mistakes in that post I'm not sure what you are trying to say....If you reword it, maybe I can answer.

Okay that try again where last 4 or 7 post are going.


My question why do most software and hardware do not run on Linux ?

Answer Linux supports more hardware than windows .


My question When you go to store to buy software or hardware it say on the box what OS it will run on .

Answer LOL. Come on. I've got 2 motherboard boxes right next to me, and one says "compatible with Windows 7" the other says "certified for Windows Vista". I know for a fact that both board will run with 7, Vista, XP, and quite likely 2K as well.



aemef is dead right, the "compatible with" badges are marketing. IIRC the companies pay microsoft for use of that badge as well.


My question I'm not sure who is paying who? I don't understand this at all.


So to summarize posting above ,I don't know why on the box of the software or hardware it say support windows 7 and windows vista but supports way way way way more OS's.




And the thing why does all this hardware work on Linux ?

No, my answer was-

There is a difference between "probably got the most support for hardware" and a blunt "linux supports more hardware than windows". It would all depend on how you define 'support' (does it have to run 'out of the box, does it need offical drivers, do 3rd party 'community' developed drivers count, etc.?)

What is making this harder than it should be is that you are changing what has been said.

Its also made a lot harder by the fact there is no single 'windows'- if you want to use it a generic term, then 'windows' has supported a lot of hardware over the years. A lot of that hardware is no longer support by current windows versions. Microsoft has droped some architectures from current windows versions (DEC Alpha, MIPS, SPARC, etc.) and individual hardware manufacturers have also dropped support with newer windows versions, etc.

If I am right the hardware manufacturers are paying microsoft for the right to use ""compatible with Windows 7", "certified for Windows Vista" etc. badges. Finding a solid link to that info could be tricky, if its even true.

To twist your question, if those badges are meant for consumer information, why do both the motherboaord boxes I looked at not list XP which I know works on both boards? Answer- because its not consumer information, its marketing.

Because most hardware does get linux drivers at some point, and the hardware that doesnt have linux drivers can sometimes be made to work by skilled developers.

That's pure marketing.

In reality, it's the OS that supports the hardware, not the hardware that supports the OS. So it's the OS's job to list what hardware it supports, not the other way around.

If someone wrote a brand new OS that only 3 people in the world know about, should the hardware that OS runs on have that OS listed on the box?

No quite true. If an OS supports inter-process memory protection, HW should support it in the first place. Say, 8051 (AFAIR) doesn't have tis capability.

What I mean is that if a new piece of hardware comes out, it's the OS developers' job to choose to support it or not.

And when someone makes a new OS, they (not the hardware vendor) choose what hardware to support.

EDIT:

Another way of thinking of this is that what OSes run on the hardware is outside the hardware vendor's control. They just make a piece of hardware that they hope can work with most OSes, and then OS developers create support for it.

Why ? what is the point ? Who is making the money doing this ? What is the point.

Again who is making the money , What is the point and why.


That is a subjective argument as hardware makers give out drivers to run on OS . It like saying is it Microsoft is why the hardware and software was not running on windows vista or the problem with hardware and software maker did not make it support windows vista.

What should it be the OS that bows down or the hardware and software makers .You do know with windows it has been like this .

My take on Linux it is Linux that is doing it.But even with Microsoft giving out drivers in OS to support hardware it so bad the drivers Microsoft has in OS.

It advertizes Windows, and it reassures totally computer-illiterate users that the hardware will work with their OS (I even see monitors (!) that say "Windows (Vista|7) certified"!).

Also, it's likely that it's becasue the vendor officially supports Windows and has Windows drivers. They don't care about or support other OSes, even if they work with third-party drivers.

In Linux, it doesn't really work that way. The vendor makes hardware, and the open-source community reads the documentation (or, in case of proprietary hardware, reverse-engineers it) and writes drivers.

+1. Its not the only possible reason, but its a good one.

I'm not so sure about this. I'd say its more likely they dont want to put a generic 'supports linux' badge on the box for several reasons-

1- it might not be true for all distros, which could leave the manufacturer open for legal action.
2- putting a specific distro on the box might give people the impression that it only supports that distro and version.
3- microsoft might charge more for a "compatible with Windows 7" badge is it appears with any other badge, in particular a linux or BSD badge.

so the OS maker has to pay the hardware maker to put sticker on the box?

No. The hardware (and software) vendor needs to pass a series of tests to be permitted to show the sticker. For these 'tests' they pay a fee to Microsoft.

I understand now .So this may be why the hardware and software runs on other OS but does not want to pay the test to Linux or apple.Why so much hardware and software run on Linux.

By the way I was reading stuff on the internet today and it is called bloatware This talk floating around on the internet .

I was calling it bloated for having lots of files just to keep the OS going. May or may not be best choise of words but critics of windows talk about this alot.

I do not really understand OS's and programing enough to really say any thing.

There are no such tests for Linux.

Then simply don't do it.

Apple simply dont have a 'certified hardware' scheme. According to the apple EULA you are only meant to install OSX on 'apple branded hardware' (even though it will run on most modern x86 hardware)

True, there isnt any tests like that for 'linux' as a whole, but Red Hat and Canonical both run 'certified hardware' programs-

http://www.ubuntu.com/certification

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compatibility/hardware/

Red Hat mainly lists server hardware (no real surprise there), canonical lists more desktop/laptop systems.

BTW, even though the canonical list is less flawed than it was in the past, its still not a good place to look for hardware that is linux friendly. There is a lot of hardware on the the list that is not linux friendly at all, and at least some ofthe systems listed can only run if you get a 'base' model or are prepared to deal with useless hardware in the system sucking power pointlessly.