And the writer says so.
He also says that it DOESN'T WORK OUT OF THE BOX.
He had to fiddle with it to get it to work.
It doesn't matter how "tough" it is. What matters is that for all of the hand-wringing about how Linux is "too hard," it's actually easier to install than the most popular version of Windows today.
And the write also didn’t bother to find out of a 2001 Linus would work out o the box. Thus his test is invalid. All he proved is that a 2008ish OS will handle new hardware better than a 2001 OS, it’ll also have newer dates on the files.
And of course there’s a lot more to using a computer than the OS install. Sure maybe the Linux install was easier, now it’s time to put Office on there so you can actually get some work done.
The whole test is invalid. From the start. He’s not comparing like eras of OS, he doesn’t bother to find out where the problem is coming from, and he lies about the general availability of driver disks. It’s a BUNK article. And it’s gotten painfully boring showing you that. Have a good day.