[5323] in RedHat Linux List
Re: On supported hardware (was Re: 3com Bommerang netcard)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Wed Nov 20 17:16:48 1996
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:13:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
cc: Robert Hart <iweft@ipax.com.au>, tintype@zedalis.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961120160306.4294A-100000@chaos>
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Sheldon E. Newhouse wrote:
> 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.)
Perhaps somewhere between the current methods and trying to have every
hardware vendor actually write specs, there's some middle ground. It's
likely that many of the hardware vendors would be quite happy to donate
hardware (eg. LAN cards) to folks who are writing drivers for such things.
At present it's not clear, from the hardware vendor's perspective, who the
RIGHT person or persons are to give units to.
If someone set up a clearinghouse spot for such activity, that'd certainly
help. The hardware vendors would perhaps like the ability to display the
"Cool, it works with Linux" logo in exchange.
>
> >
> > > 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.
Let's use my employer for example. At Proteon, we make Token Ring and
Ethernet NIC cards, hubs, routers, switches and so forth. I did an
evaluation of the Ethernet cards on my own with Linux. The company gave me
copies of the cards that'd fit in my machines, and I wrote up a web page
that explains the results. See my page at:
http://www.senie.com/dan/technology/pton-ether.html
Now if someone had an interest in working with Proteon's token ring cards,
we could explore getting cards and specs out. NIC cards are not where our
company is spending it's major attention right now, so I don't think we're
going to be able to expend engineering time to write new drivers right
now.
Then we get into other products that work well with Linux, even if they
aren't directly in the Linux box. Our little routers do really well with
Linux, for example, but sit out on the Ethernet. Should those be able to
get a "Cool, it works with Linux" logo? I don't know. I'd love to see it
on the ads, and think it'd help Linux as much as it'd help Proteon, but
does that make it OK? Who gets to decide?
Some better system than what we've got IS needed...
Dan
--
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
