Linux doesn't "have" to run on the hardware. The vendors put in all the work to make the hardware work for Windows (not Microsoft); the Linux community often has to do all the work themselves (usually starting by reverse engineering hardware, due to uncooperative vendors).
Linux does have to run on the hardware if it wants to be used by people. Blaming vendors doesn't fix the problem or get the community anywhere. This just reeks of being blinded by pride.
> Blaming vendors doesn't fix the problem or get the community anywhere.
Neither does blaming Linux developers.
But the fact is, Linux developers are doing their best to cooperate, while hardware vendors aren't. It's not about assigning blame, it's about describing the objective state of facts.
Nobody was blaming vendors either. That doesn't change the fact that vast swathes of hardware vendors put much more effort into helping Windows support their hardware than Linux.
> Saying "[this is yet] another area where Linux Distros are at least 10 years behind Windows" has a certain unpleasant tone that reeks of blame.
How do you figure? This just strikes me as insecurity. Regardless of the fact that your quote represents a nonsensical claim, Linux's lack of hardware support isn't something worth dancing around, it's just reality.
I am not sure why you think "Linux" wants to be used by people. There is no "Linux" in that sense.
The people that want to run Linux on their machines, make efforts in that direction, either by ensuring that the hardware they run Linux on is compatible, or invest time/money in making it compatible. When hardware vendors provide documentation and man power it's "easy", when they don't it's hard or impossible or, like in this specific case, only the basic capabilities of the hardware can be exploited.
This hasn't been implemented because none of the people who value Linux and have the technical skills to implement this care about fingerprint readers, nor care to support people who do. If you don't like that, then do it yourself or pay somebody else to do it for you.
NoLsAfterMid's comment betrays an entitled attitude (e.g. "Linux should want this because I want this"), he doesn't seem to actually understand how or why things get done in the area of Linux. Linux itself doesn't "want" things, Linux itself cannot want to support particular use cases. Either somebody who wants something supported does it themself, or they pay somebody else to do it.
It depends on your frame of reference. To the end user or in a conversation about "can I install Linux on the family PC", maybe there is no distinction. To people posting on what is a tech forum considering the root of the issue, there is. This is the latter.