> As for the scanner -- that's a shame. However, I've seen scanners
> goes just as poorly by going from XP to 7 (go from super-fancy to a
> plain 1-page-at-a-time scanner), and totally die from 98 to 2000, 2000
> to XP, XP to Vista (no drivers). It's a fantasy that you can just take
> random hardware and expect it to 100% work with Windows either. To be
> clear, I think their decisions to go with Windows in this case was
> sensible (since the hardware works with it) but this is really not a
> strong argument against Linux adoption *in general*, as I've found
> Ubuntu has supported FAAAAAR more hardware for me than Windows ever has.
Actually this is a strong argument to use Linux. Hardware that has OSS
Linux drivers do work in new versions of Linux. It is very rare that
hardware drivers that people are still using is removed from Linux.
So yeah if you already have a Scanner that already works in your Windows
version that stick to that. But when that stops working, look for a scanner
that supports Linux without proprietary drivers. Actually look for a printer
that supports Linux, OS X and Windows. Thats always a sing of quality.
_________________________________________________________________
Vårfina smileys till Messenger här!
http://springpack.msn.se
--
Microsoft has a majority market share
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
