Every OS has it's quirks, things you might not recall as friction points because they're expected.
I haven't found any notable issues with quality hardware, possibly with some need to verify support in the case of radio transmitter devices. You'd probably have the same issue for E.G. Mac OS X.
As consumers we'd have an easier time if: 1) The main chipset and 'device type ID' had to be printed on the box. 2) Model numbers had to change in a visible way for material changes to the Bill of Materials (any components with other specifications, including different primary chipset control methods). 3) Manufacturers at least tried one flavor of Linux, without non-GPL modules (common firmware blobs are OK) and gave a pass / fail on that.
I don’t think I am spreading FUD. Hardware issues with Linux on non well trodden paths is a well known issue. X11 (still widely used on many distros) has a myriad of problems with multi monitor setups - particularly when resolutions and refresh rates don’t match.
You’re right that the manufacturers could provide better support, but they don’t.
Every OS has it's quirks, things you might not recall as friction points because they're expected.
I haven't found any notable issues with quality hardware, possibly with some need to verify support in the case of radio transmitter devices. You'd probably have the same issue for E.G. Mac OS X.
As consumers we'd have an easier time if: 1) The main chipset and 'device type ID' had to be printed on the box. 2) Model numbers had to change in a visible way for material changes to the Bill of Materials (any components with other specifications, including different primary chipset control methods). 3) Manufacturers at least tried one flavor of Linux, without non-GPL modules (common firmware blobs are OK) and gave a pass / fail on that.