[5317] in RedHat Linux List
Re: On supported hardware (was Re: 3com Bommerang netcard)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sheldon E. Newhouse)
Wed Nov 20 16:21:09 1996
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:17:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Sheldon E. Newhouse" <sen1@math.msu.edu>
To: Robert Hart <iweft@ipax.com.au>
cc: redhat-list@redhat.com, tintype@zedalis.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961121073207.12991Y-100000@archenland.interweft.com.au>
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Robert Hart wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Sheldon E. Newhouse wrote:
>
> > 1. As new products become available *and* tested, they get added to
> > the Hardware HOW-TO. It is very important that this be kept up-to-date.
> > The Linux Hardware HOW-TO is now dated 14 Nov, 1995, and is not
> > up-to-date. It especially does not warn users about the Adaptec
> > problems.
> >
> > Right now, AFAIK, problems such as those found with the Adaptec cards can
> > only be realized by going to the appropriate news-group (or is it mailing
> > list?). It is unreasonable to expect people to check many lists to find what
> > is well supported.
> >
> > We need to have a place where tried and tested hardware is listed.
> > Up-to-date Hardware HOW-TO could be the place.
> > Should there be another place?
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we should have a list of recommended systems.
> > This might make some dent in the hardware world.
>
> A few points -
> a) HOWTO's - as with all parts of the Linux world are written by people
> who have donated their time and effort. There is no way we can pressure
> them to be faster with updates. As the author of one HOWTO and one
> mini-howto (and possibly taking over a second HOWTO) I know exactly how I
> would react to such pressure...
This is well understood by me. I hope no one took my original post as
criticism and/or pressure to try to change what is already a good and
important service. I am simply trying to get at what is a cronic problem.
Most hardware vendors don't take Linux seriously! If they did,
they would make sure to supply drivers for it. I think this problem
needs to be addressed, and I welcome suggestions from various people as
to what might be done.
. >
> b) The situation with the support for new hardware is the same - it is all
> voluntary. Given the way Linux operates as a cooperative development
> project using the GNU copy left, I do not see this situation changing.
Again, there are software companies based now completely on Linux, e.g.
RH and Caldera. I want to encourage them to use their resources to
a. Help coordinate the application of pressure on the hardware
companies.
b. Give some thought to how we can make the whole hardware problem less
troublesome. (It is obvious the much of the support problems these
companies face is related to exactly this problem.)
>
> > 2. Companies that don't supply specs and don't cooperate with Linux
> > should be explicitly mentioned, avoided, *and* written to. Hardware
> > sellers (especially those of full systems) should be told that their
> > hardware will not be bought because they don't support Linux.
>
> Writing to hardware manufacturers is an excellent idea. This did seem to
> work in the case of Diamond! There are a few companies whose
> products I would like to use (notably Xircom and their pcmcia
> ethernet/modem card) but who will not cooperate in terms of specs.
It also worked with Matrox.
> I would be against a 'list of supported hardware' as this will bet
> incredibly long and runs the risk of users/manufacturers complaining that
> their clone ET4000 or CD or NE2000 etc etc is not listed.
>
> Much better IMHO is to have a list that specifically warns users AGAINST
> buying particular hardware. Even this will be long, but I can see that it
> might well put pressure on manufacturers.
>
> I would suggest that this be discussed with producers of the major
> distributions (Hellooooo Red Hat...) with a view to having the list hosted
> at their site.
Here is another comment on related problems.
For Linux to make much more of a dent in the *real* world, IMHO it
would be good to have a list of known workable systems on which
installation has been tested and can pretty much be guaranteed to
run. For instance, what does RH use? Think of the marketing pressure
this kind of information could generate for hardware companies.
I am aware of some of the pitfalls of endorsement of hardware, but the
growth and general use of Linux suffers because of this. I don't know the
answer, but I think it is important to come up with ideas.
At present, there is an informal and incomplete kind of 'word of
mouth' spreading of information, which leads to giving Linux a
bad name when things don't work. This list is full of examples of this.
-sen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sheldon E. Newhouse | e-mail: sen1@math.msu.edu |
| Mathematics Department | |
| Michigan State University | telephone: 517-355-9684 |
| E. Lansing, MI 48824-1027 USA | FAX: 517-432-1562 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Errata
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
