I was friends with Eric at the time (we've long since lost touch) and he asked me to review a draft of his book. I didn't have the heart to tell him it was unpublishable gibberish. The joke's on me, obviously: turns out, it was very publishable gibberish.
> Are those market participants willing to pay for that work, in cash or code? TANSTAAFL.
Is Ubuntu demanding they pay for that work in cash or code? Obviously not, since Ubuntu generally offers it for free. You think they do that out of the goodness of their hearts? I don't. I think they benefit from people using their software even for free, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Whatever that benefit is, they'll get less of it if people reject their software because Bluetooth sucks (for example). Suppose that gives them incentive to do something about it. Then what's the problem? Sounds like an efficient market interaction to me.
> I can't imagine that there is any meaningful overlap between people capable of polishing install wizards (UX-centric userspace applications) and dealing with BT (kernel code and plumbing daemons), so it's not really a trade.
Ubuntu pays developers. The more they pay one kind of developer the less they're able to pay other kinds of developers. So yeah. That really is a trade-off for Ubuntu.
Sure, unless you've already purchased the hardware, or had it purchased for you outside of your control.
All I'm saying is, if the the Linux developers made a better product, probably more people would use it. That is entirely independent of the fact that you can say the same thing about the hardware manufacturers.
Obviously, it's a matter of trade-offs. However, these trade-offs aren't written in stone. If Linux lags in hardware, new or old, that is in part itself a trade-off made by its developers, and if those developers want more people to use Linux, perhaps a change in their priorities would make that more likely. Devote less time to polishing new graphical installers so that Bluetooth is rock solid on more hardware, and maybe more people will use Linux. Or, maybe they won't. That's for the market to decide. But, clearly there are market participants (some of them in this thread) who wish hardware support had a higher priority than it does. Make of that what you will.
It's ok, but what I'm reacting to is any implication that it's simply a matter of the hardware being "bad" and a figurative shrugging of the shoulders with the further implication that the fault, if there is one, lies squarely with the hardware manufacturers for making "bad" hardware and the users for choosing "bad" hardware. Let's set aside value judgments and the assignment of blame and agree that if Linux had better hardware support, probably more people would use it, shall we?