Why? He tried an install of XP and it didn't work on his hardware.
If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a Linux newbie have problems with his particular hardware and then throw up his hands and blame Linux I would be running against Obama myself.
And then along come the MS shills and scream, "See! Linux doesn't work! "
This article is evidence of one person's problem in actually installing a Microsoft operating system. It's actually not that uncommon but he's under no obligation to conform to YOUR rules.
He's doing a very common thing. He's using the most preferred Windows version (XP) on new hardware. And it doesn't work.
Because unless 7 year old Linux handles the same hardware better he didn’t prove anything more than 7 year old OSes have issues with new hardware, which is kind of a no brainer.
No the article is stating that Linux is easier than XP definitely but the truth is his testing didn’t prove that. He’s making a conclusionary statement based on uneven testing of unlike circumstances.
And actually he didn’t prove it doesn’t work. All he proved was that XPs generic network drivers had an issue with his particular network adapter and he needed to use the driver disk that came with the computer. BFD.