Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Vendors Paying Lip Service To Linux Support? 173

Posted by Cliff from the piss-off-potential-customers=bad-idea dept.
NetJunkie asks: "Most people are familiar with the Microsoft and Novell 'certified' logos on software and hardware. If something is shown to actually not be compatible with a standard install they can lose that logo. But what about Linux? I bought an IO Gear KVM/USB switch with the Tux logo on it. When it didn't work correctly switching consoles (the mouse would stop working under Linux until I reloaded mousedev) I called tech support and was told '...we don't really support Linux and it hasn't been tested very well'. They couldn't even give me a tested configuration that was proven to work, and I already run a pretty stock configuration. So what do we do?" We fix the problem. If their support doesn't help, maybe some kind coder out there has been able to solve the problems and can lend a helping hand. What other things can we do to ensure that vendors who say they "support Linux" really make good on their claims?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vendors Paying Lip Service to Linux Support? More

Vendors Paying Lip Service to Linux Support?

Comments Filter:
  • Except for maybe asking Linus to certify the program/device, there's no real certification for the OS because it's free. Here, of course, we see the bad parts of that fact (well, that and RealPlayer). The thing is, ideally, if a program doesn't work properly, you change it so it does work. That's the point of free software. I think it should be the distros that certify programs since each is different.

  • This is unavoidable (Score:4)

    by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @07:11PM (#952585) Journal
    This is part of the commercialization of linux, and it's unavoidable. You're never going to run out of some people trying to make a quick buck at the expense of others. I guess another type of information that you'll need to share is which vendors are trying to screw you over and how.

    And as linux becomes easier to use, and more accessible to the average user, this will get worse. You've got the advantage of most of the current linux user base being able to tell that they're being screwed over. I guess just spread the word of who sucks as fast as you can.

  • Non-partial testing company needed (Score:5)

    by linuxonceleron ( 87032 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @07:12PM (#952586) Homepage
    We need some kind of non-partial company to test for linux support. Of course this will cost money for the producers of the hardware, but there's no way you could do it for free (short of giving the hardware away to linux users for testing :) ) A "Tested by Tux Labs" logo on the package would be what we would look for on packaging. It would also make things easier than having 5 redhat/suse/mandrake/debian/slackware ready logos on the box. This is an open space in the Linux business market that I'm sure someone will fill shortly as Linux becomes more mainstream.

  • I cannot imagine any vendor saying "We support any Linux distro and version".

    However, I can imagine them saying, "We support Red Hat 6.2".

    As we all know, that is not what we want, only one distribution to be supported by a company. What needs to happen is to have some sort of "Linux Software Support Standard" in which all distributions and software vendors can choose to support.

    Can this happen? I hope so. Otherwise it will just be "We only support Red Hat 6.2".


    "...we are moving toward a Web-centric stage and our dear PC will be one of
  • don't buy the product. if you bought it, take it back. tell your friends not to buy it, they tell their friends, etc.

    sure, someone on a mission could start giving personal endorsements, but it all boils down to "who you trust?" do your homework on a product, and if you get burned, prevent someone else from doing the same.

    B1ood

  • linuxmall [linuxmall.com] and copyleft [copyleft.net] have linux stickers that are made for your computer case, I'd recommend getting the big sticker sheet from linuxmall, its like $2 and comes with more stickers than most people have computers.

  • Threaten to kick them in the shins with very heavy boots if we find it doesnt work as stated.
    Or a more reasonable answer would be to return it and find something that does...
  • heh kewl thx now i just gotta dig up some cash
  • 1. The Vendors can put a FAQ on their website about the problems that the product may have under linux. 2. The Vendors can also hire a few people who know what they are doing with the product and how it runs under linux to help the linux community. 3. The Vendors can also include a linux section of the product manual and troubleshooting in it. 4. Umm thats about all the ideas I have on this subject...

  • No single controlling entity = no certification (Score:4)

    by dustpuppy ( 5260 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @07:16PM (#952593)
    Novell and MS have their certification logos and they can be trusted. Why? Because there is a controlling entity (ie MS or Novell). If a vendor misuses the logo, then bang, there goes the certification logo.

    But with Linux, there is no real controlling entity - Linux's strength is in it's diversity and dispersed control. But this also makes it difficult to have any sort of certification that can be enforced. If there is no one entity saying what constitutes certification (and no entity to revoke certification), then all we can rely on is the reputation of the vendor.

    The only way to fix it (as far as I can see) is that we need a single entity to test and validate Linux certification. It think that something like this will start eventually.

    The real danger comes when, becuase of Linux's open source nature, we have multiple certification standards which will lead to confusion and will ultimately prove detrimental to Linux as a whole.

  • great topic. (Score:3)

    by Bad_CRC ( 137146 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @07:19PM (#952594)
    This is one of the things about Linux that people don't tend to talk about too much.

    Almost everything in linux is sold or marketed as "unsupported" from the corportations and hardware manufacturers who market them.

    Now, we can't try to go around demanding full support at this point, as linux is still small enough that these companies would probably be more profitable by skipping linux altogether than by investing in full support for linux drivers and support staff. Especially with the incredibly high number of distributions and variations out there.

    A type of certification would be great, but implementation and enforcement would be a nightmare.

    We can't demand more support, but if we settle for no support, that's all we will ever get. No easy answers, other than the only one which makes sense at this point... "wait till we get a bit more marketshare"

    ________
    1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"

  • Nothing will work on ANY system. Period. Computer hardware is so diverse that there can be millions of combonations. To find out what works and what doesn't work the consumer must go out on the net and do some research. If some people had tough times on one sound card and another sound card worked great then buy the good one.

    There is only one other solution:
    Buy a preinstalled Linux/FreeBSD/Windows box with everything working. Only then the consumer doesn't have to bother with I/O, IRQs, support, software and more.

  • Word of mouth can do more damage to a company than most people imagine. The product fails to perform and you return it. They give you a song and dance, write it down, document it, spread the word. Tell your friends and the people running various Linux sites that said company is -not- supporting Linux and offer them quotable material. Most reputable companies are terrified of dissatisfied customers, because while a happy customer tells a couple people, an unhappy one will tell lots more.

    Of course, if some Linux site were to run reviews of supposed Linux support services, manufacturers, etc, you could readily nip a lot of it in the bud.

  • Market is too broken - no central linux regulator (Score:3)

    by jonnythan ( 79727 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @07:22PM (#952597)
    There's an obvious problem with this: there is no central authority who has the power to hand these guys a cease-and-desist order or risk prosecution.

    With MS and others, they have the power to actually tell those companies "take off our certified logo or we'll sue you." If someone indicates linux compatibility and the product doesn't quite work and you can't get support, there's no company or organization you can go to and say "look what they did! make them take it off!"

    I think it would be very beneficial for linux in general if some of the large, more trusted names in Linux got together to organize a Linux Certification system. The whole linux name would gain some credibility if Red Hat, Corel, Mandrake, Suse, VA Linux, etc., formed something by which they would have the power to give and take "Linux Certified" stickers or something and give out "Linux Certified System Administrator" certifications.

    This way, people might eventually recognize a little penguin means nothing, but the nice pretty logo branded with Red Hat and Debian logos actually means something. Those friends who are studying for their LCSA's are doing something useful and profitable too.

    Until we get enough linux companies together to agree on such a certification system, it will remain totally out of our reach to make sure that companies who claim to "Support Linux" really do.
  • This is the problem of being a open source OS being developed by many people. The Certified for Windows system works because there is very few versions of Windows that it has to work on, and therefore is easy to test.

    With linux every machine can and probably is different, with such variety it makes it hard to test for.

    Only if linux was to go into closed source and being developed by one group would certification become much easier.

    Also, dont the hardware/software manufacturers have to pay a fee to get MS and Novell certification?

  • Although this is not a field of law in which I have any experience, it seems that this is false advertising. The company is claiming something on its advertisement- the box- namely, that their product will function under the GNU/Linux operating system. The product clearly does not do this. The consumer is misled by the advertising. Is this not false advertising? (NO, I'm not a lawyer. I am a legal assistant though, so I pick up a lot about the law. I've just not done anything near this area.)

  • Re:There's no certification (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ideally, if a program doesn't work properly, you change it so it does work. That's the point of free software
    I'm sorry, you're sadly mistaken. Free Software was invented by Richard M. Stallman [stallman.org] to give freedom to the user. Having the source available to modify it is a convient side effect. In Richard M. Stallman's essay, Why Software Should Not Have Owners [gnu.org], Richard M. Stallman explains why software should be free:
    What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, free, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.

    Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.

  • In this case, you'd have to go to whoever owns the rights to Tux. They could go to that company and tell them to stop using Tux to imply Linux compatibility or be sued for trademark infringement, and back it up. That's about it. Distro brands like RedHat or Debian could enforce this on use of their logos as well, eg. Debian could keep companies from using the Debian logo on their products unless they satisfied Debian that their products worked to Debian's satisfaction with Linux.

  • I dont believe this is false advertising as the product may function under a certain distribution of Linux. They would get off on a technicality.

    Redhat / Slackware / etc are all Linux, but I bet it would be hard to find a network card that works under all these distros without tweaking.

  • what i'm thinking... (Score:4)

    by fluxrad ( 125130 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @07:31PM (#952603)
    is that we should have linus, or more realistically, a third party take charge of the regulations. If your software doesn't run reasonably well on the majority of the default linux installs, then you don't get the seal of approval.

    There are, however, two major problems with linux compatibility certifications. 1: Linux is, by it's nature, a completely free and open environment. This means that no two people really have the "same" linux install. Everyone's got their install tailored to their individual needs. this makes it really hard to say "yeah - this product will work for you." There's no way in hell a company can test it's software on thousands of different configurations. It's just not cost effective

    2: Linux doesn't really hold the same hand that Windows does. To a company, getting your Windows cert yanked is a MAJOR drawback - they'll spend the bucks to keep that logo - and to support it. Most companies (note: most, not all) don't give a flying fuck what happens with linux because they don't have a major investment. Linux, for companies like Corel, and certainly Adobe is just that "other" release that they're trying to pick up on. They don't really care if some organization or person says that it's not quite good enough. When linux gains signifigantly more market share, that'll change.

    I suppose the best thing to do right now would to just have a sort of review repository that rates the software as far as how well it works with any and all types of linux. This wouldn't really be a seal of approval, but it would certainly give software manufacturers and consumers a benchmark at least. Other than that, the best thing to do at this point is to get more people using linux, then the software manufac's will realize that people who use linux actually DO vote with their checkbooks.


    FluX
    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • We already have standards. You can get the latest version by typing "vi /usr/doc/HOWTO/Hardware-HOWTO". This isn't a joke, I'm dead serious. The linux standard is the kernel, so the sooner we convince manufacturers to provide modules for the KERNEL for their devices, the better we'll be. It could be worse.. they could be creating must-run-as-root daemons with closed-source APIs. I say we formalize an existing standard.. afterall, it's worked quite well so far.
  • Novell is novell and windows is windows, but are you running redhat or slackware? X or plain console? Kernel 1.x or 2.0 or 2.2? Linux changes daily so their "test configuration" would be outdated by the time the product made it to stores.

  • KVM Switches & linux. (Score:5)

    by Hardware_Bob ( 31326 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @07:35PM (#952606)
    The new Cybex Switches all have a linux logo on it, which says linux and then in small print "linux-tested.com" This site provides linux testing and psuedo-certification.

    This shows that:

    • Hardware Certification is important to linux
    • Cybex (and other companies) who get their hardware "certified" or at least tested, recognise linux.
    • three things in a list look much more credible than two.
    I use a cybex SV-4 on 3 linux boxes daily, using an intellimouse, and have never had a problem.
    --------
  • There are already commercial entities that support Linux - like Red Hat, Caldera, and IBM. Maybe one of those companies could start selling certification? It could end up profitable, now that Linux is starting to become more "mainstream" - according to the media (not real life).

    I wonder if Red Hat could come up with a certification program. I wish they would. Where I work, we bought a Dell 2400 that was supposed to work with Red Hat Linux. Guess what? Nope! Linux had no idea what the SCSI RAID array was. They supposedly had drivers that worked, but only on a certain hacked kernel with a certain configuration, and their tech support was way too underinformed to get us something like that.

    If Red Hat had been certifying hardware (and gotten paid a wonderful fee for it), I'm sure that darned thing wouldn't have been advertized in the first place.
  • I'd go with the first suggestion. A few other people suggested distro's here as well, but that really just means Red Hat doesn't it? If not then it means anyone with a cd burner or a static IP. I think Linus with his main kernel source is the way to go. He already trademarked Linux, why not make a "Works with Linux" logo and restrict it's use to those who are supported by the main kernel tree. This would be another incentive for hw companies to write drivers. Besides all the PC vendors would jump on it, I'd love to see it next to the intel sticker in the store, and we could all print one to put on our boxes. Hmm, and have logo contest to allow the communinty to participate... yes... I think I should be mailing Linus instead.
  • At least there pretending half the hardware i buy for windows doesnt even work on it so evidently the manafacturers pretend it works on windows to. Finally linux has the support windows has!
  • I had the same problem with a sound card. Sheesh you would think something like this would work. Konk. Nope. Just so happens they havn't tested it. Sheesh
  • My Cybex SV-4 is a little bit older, and it doesn't have the logo. All the same, it works fine. They promised it would work with Linux anyway -- their word is a lot more reassuring than that of an unknown "independent" lab.

    FWIW, hardware certification for Linux is a joke. Novell and Micros~1 have cert labs, and they can guarantee the results because they also control the operating system. Linux is not centralized this way.

    It is up to the vendor themself to claim a product Linux compatible -- this involves little more than releasing a basic driver under a free license, then making the hardware documentation freely available. I'm not sure why companies like nVidia find this to be such a chore...
  • Umm... maybe it's just me, but when it says that it works with linux, and it doesn't, welp, it just seems like the Better Business Bureau might want to talk a little with them. And if you had it mailed to you, welp, the Post Office has this thing about mail fraud (find out all about it at www.usps.gov). See, there are all kinds of consumer protection laws out there, even the state attorney general may get interested if enough people complain. And there are also laws against false advertising.

    the_B0fh

  • One Large Vendor in Australia... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I do medium level systems administration for the public relations agency that handles one of the big five computer vendors thoughout the Asia Pacific region.

    This vendor has the PR agency announce "Worldwide 24 x 7 support for Linux". When the IT staff at the said PR agency decided they'd upgrade a file and print server [running Redhat 6.x], and had a spare $7,500, they called the vendor. The response, verbatim, was `Uh, we don't really support Linux'. This is a multibillion dollar company that can't get it's own damned story straight. Which worked out well for their more improved competitors - Dell not only say they support Linux, but do, and a PowerEdge 2400 ended up being the new server.

  • I bought two of their EtherFast 10/100 LAN cards because they were the only ones on the shelf that had the "Tested with LINUX" penguin on the box. I couldn't get them to work in my old P100 box, so I paged through the manual. It's chocked full of Windows and Novell instructions, while the only mention of Linux is: "Linksys does not provide technical support for Linux, BSD, or other freeware and open source operating systems..."

    Now, maybe with more experience or something, I could have made them work, but it is inherently dishonest to put a big "Linux" on the outside and say you don't support it on the inside.

    I'll never buy from the fuckers again.

  • I always thought those "designed for Windows 9x" or "designed for Windows NT" stickers looked much better on the side of our department's trashcans. I find that they peel off rather easily and have enough "stick" left to remain on the can permenantly.

    Creepy
  • yeah, I think either Linus or Larry Ewing would have to take the issue up with the companies in question, although Tux may be released in such a way that not much can be done about it.
  • The question was what WE can do...and the only thing that we can really do, besides gripe about it, is either fix it and make it work or not buy the product. The reason that Novell or MS approved products even display that they work with said OS's is because there is a market and the manufactures know that people will buy thier product BECAUSE it works with aforementioned OS's. The only way that the consumer can express anger about companies misleading them about a product is either writing and complaining (how effective is this really??) or by not buying the product (basically hitting them where it actually hurts.) In a capitalist market your wallet is your biggest voice, unfortunately.
  • Novell and Microsoft are every closed in how they do things. This seems like one time when being closed is good. It seems that Linux has become very fragmented when a hardware device cannot be supported by any flavour of Linux. Instead of making devices Redhat Ready or SUSE certified, device support commonality is something all Linux vendors should work hard towards. This would also make people decide on a flavour of Linux based on how secure it is, or how well it installs, rather than what specific device support it has. Make devices Linux flavour independent.
  • Read my comment about making
    "Logo's openly interpretted"..

    Linux companies shouldn't discern, they
    are competitors god forbid.. Why not
    give power to the people.. And make it impossible for any company to moderate the data..
    Maybe better would to release all moderation
    logs to the world made by the company on its own
    data and open source its internal code aside from
    its own personal data for maintaining the
    database.. There has to be some distributed model
    to solving this problem that is anonymous and fool proof??
  • It seems to me that it is in the interests of the major Linux vendors to form a joint business which will provide Linux certification.

    That way they share the cost between them (minimising individual cost), there is inherent value in the certification because of the vendor reputations and market share, and it would promote greater consumer confidence in using Linux, and in the vendor specific distributions of Linux in particular.

    As far as I can see it is a win-win situation.

  • Also check ThinkGeek [thinkgeek.com]

    I really like that site. :)
  • But they won't get any more, regardless. Given this forum, maybe they won't get yours either.
  • What was I thinking? It should be "Linux* Enabled Technology." Hahaha.

    * Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvolds.
  • That your KVM/USB problems sounds very much like an old bug in mousedev.c itself. I've seen that bug in action myself. The problem was that mousedev.c wouldn't notice new devices when they were plugged in. At least while the mixer device was opened.
    There is no problem with them saying their switch works with Linux, or anything else for that matter, as all it should be doing is changing the electrical connections around. Beyond that it's up to the host systems to properly handle the situaition. With USB as soon as that electrical connection is gone, it's gone. Just like pulling the cord out of the plug. Switching back is just the reverse, plugging your device back into your computer.
    Also, I havn't seen any recent trafic concering USB KVM's on linux-usb. Nor in my searches of linux-usb-user and linux-usb-devel on sourceforge.

    - kimo_sabe

  • Collaborative vendor certification is the way! (Score:5)

    by dustpuppy ( 5260 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @08:07PM (#952625)
    It seems to me that it is in the interests of the major Linux vendors to form a joint business which will provide Linux certification.

    That way they share the cost between them (minimising individual cost), there is inherent value in the certification because of the vendor reputations and market share, and it would promote greater consumer confidence in using Linux, and in the vendor specific distributions of Linux in particular.

    As far as I can see it is a win-win situation.

  • Laws differ around the world, but here for example, a retailer must either refund, repair or replace any product not fit for the purpose for which it was advertised. Further details make it clear that something like that logo which might reasonably be expected to mean it's compatible with that software are sufficient grounds for this to kick in.

    Ask around and find out what the deal is in your area. Once the retailer knows you know your rights, a satisfying resolution is often a lot easier. The retailer in turn might take the complaint to the manufacturer, who is far more likely to act on the desires of a bulk purchaser than the guy on the street.
  • The 'support' that most OpenSource advocates want is open specs, and Linksys has a long history of being cooperative with the Linux community. I've got a couple of Linksys cards, and they work fine. Most tech support personnel are low paid morons and wouldn't have a clue how to troubleshoot a Linux system.

    Doing a search for 'linux' on their web site comes up with the following links which might be of help to you:
    http://www.linksys.com/faqs/default.asp?fqid=10
    http://www.linksys.com/support/support.asp?spid= 26http://www.linksys.com/support/kb.asp?kb id=116
    http://www.linksys.com/support/support.asp?spid= 25

    Don't be too harsh on Linksys - they were an early adopter of Linux (I was using Linksys cards under Linux over 4 years ago) and I've been pretty pleased with their products.

    Cheers,
    Mark

  • BSD has much longer average uptimes than Linux

    Only because BSD systems are often dedicated workstations or servers. GNU/Linux has a higher fraction of users who dual-boot because they can't afford vmware to run their precious [preciousmoments.com] Windows games.

  • A Lesson In How To Use Market Forces (Score:5)

    by Hrunting ( 2191 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @08:12PM (#952629) Homepage
    I recently was in the market for a new cheapie ethernet card. I'm not talking about anything fancy here, just a little 10Mb card that I could stick in my Linux box for use with a new ISDN adapter. I went to Best Buy and bought a NetGear FA311. The side of the box said 'Supported operating systems' and listed underneath that 'Linux'.

    Inside, I was surprised to find on the driver diskette actual drivers, both in compiled module and source code forms. So I followed their instructions for installing the module with my 2.2.16 kernel. The module wouldn't load. No doubt it had been compiled for something else. So I followed the instructions for compiling in their module directly into my kernel. They didn't do that. They were completely wrong. So I messed around with the kernel and driver source to get the card into the configuration routine and successfully compiled it in. On bootup, the system crashed. So I contacted NetGear technical support. I received the Old Faithful of tech responses, "We don't support Linux, but we have a text file that will help you." I followed their text file to the letter (basically, compile in support for the DEC Tulip driver) and still no go. I then replied back to the NetGear guy, "Thanks but no thanks, I'm taking my business elsewhere." I then took the card back to Best Buy where I received a full refund for a 'broken' card. With my refund, I went to CompUSA (so shoot me) and bought an even cheaper SMC card (less than half the price, and the first one cost $24) that worked like a charm.

    So what do you do when a company says they support Linux and then you find out they don't? Take your business elsewhere. Even in my story I spent too much time fiddling with that NetGear, all because I didn't feel like driving back out to Best Buy. From reading newsgroup posts after the fact, I discovered that NetGear's even worse than I suspected. Apparently, their 'drivers' are actually the same thing as the standard DEC Tulip drivers rebranded, without proper crediting, and they did something that prevents the driver/card combo from working on a majority of systems, something they refuse to acknowledge.

    So what do you do if a company 'supports' Linux and really doesn't? Take your piece of hardware back and say it's defective. For all intents and purposes it is. For part of your payment, you're getting support and if you're not getting support, you have a defective product. Let market forces sort out the rest.
  • Hey ... grammar nazi seems to be on a break
  • Too bad the Hardware-HOWTO is so far out of date. Even the kernel docs lag on hardware support. To quote Linus on the 2.4-test1 release:
    ...we'll find bugs. And bad behaviour. And wonderful features which we'll document some day.

  • Re:KVM Switches & linux. (Score:4)

    by alhaz ( 11039 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @08:18PM (#952632) Homepage
    I wrote the original testing specs used by KeyLabs (the linux-tested.com people) last spring. I can attest to the fact that at least when i was in charge, this was indeed a meaningful set of tests. I handed the project off to another tech (a rabid linux user as well) in june of 99 and left it in good hands.

    KeyLabs definately isn't the only shop offering testing. Linuxcare used to, maybe they still do. I don't work for KeyLabs anymore, and I don't know if James is still the project lead for the linux project. What I do know about KeyLabs is that the culture among the techs is that it is more fulfilling to *fail* a device than to go through days of boring testing and just say it passed.

    I took *Pride* in being a major speedbump in marketing initiatives when something wasn't up to par. When you have to spend five hours pressing every key on a keyboard over and over with different modifiers, in a SPECIFIC SEQUENCE, it's the only joy possible!

    All that being said - the issue here is probably that the mouse you're using recieves some initialization from the driver (to set up a wheel, or similar) and that the KVM is inadvertently causing the mouse to be reset when you switch between systems.

    Belkin used to haven an issue like this with XWindows, there was aparantly a workaround until they fixed the hardware, for the life of me I don't remember what it was, but it's probably on belkin's support site.

  • There's no reason a third party couldn't impartially certify people. They wouldn't have to have any official sanction; if they had stringent standards, people would recognize their certificees' (if that's a word) worth.
  • Hey, my bad. Must've typed it in wrong.

    Anyway, I gotta split. I accidentally picked up a paper today and there was all this shit I didn't know a damn thing about in it. It kinda got me freaked out, 'cause I spend all my time sitting in front of my computer and I don't know much of anything about what goes on outside my bedroom.

    There's, like, some kinda election thing that just happened in Mexico, but I don't even know where Mexico is, right? I mean, is it a state? I'm not even sure who my Congressman is. Or my senator. Or my neighbor.

    Then there was this stuff at the bottom of the page I saw about about someplace called the Mid-East. Since I live in the Mid-West I figured it was maybe like on the other side of Cleveland, but then there was a map and my Mom pointed out our town and showed me all this blue stuff between here and there! It was whack! I mean, if it's so far away, why should I care about it? Can't I can just talk to these people on /. like the rest of my friends?

    Anyway, like I said, I'm going to go check out some of this stuff. I think I might even have a brother somewhere, but I don't know his email address so I haven't talked to him in a couple of years. Mom says he sleeps in the room next to mine, but he's like NEVER there! I mean, he gets up and LEAVES THE HOUSE or something! And stays gone for HOURS! Without even a laptop! Isn't that crazy? What the hell does he do without a computer in front of him all the time?

    Weird shit, man.

  • Re:KVM Switches & linux. (Score:3)

    by alhaz ( 11039 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @08:24PM (#952635) Homepage
    Forgot to mention - *Could* also be that your system is a Micron or something, and the PS/2 ports are not PC98 compliant - that is, they don't support hot-re-plugging of mice.

    Try just hot-re-plugging the mouse (pull the cable, wait a minute, plug it back in) without the KVM in series. If that doesn't work either, the problem is both that your motherboard isn't very smart and that your kvm is pretty braindead.

  • See also Paying Lip Service to Macintosh Support. From personal experience: I've gotten a Monopoly game that only worked under obsolete versions of MacOS but was still in stores being sold new, and a Logitech QuickCamPro USB that relies on 2 year old drivers that have several long standing known bugs/conflicts. Neither company is doing terribly much about these problems. I have been actively prodding Logitech in hopes that my QuickCam will be usable on MacOS X, even if I have to get specs and write a driver myself- but even that seems impossible.
  • But with Linux, there is no real controlling entity - Linux's strength is in it's diversity and dispersed control. But this also makes it difficult to have any sort of certification that can be enforced. If there is no one entity saying what constitutes certification (and no entity to revoke certification), then all we can rely on is the reputation of the vendor.

    Someone has to own the rights to Tux. And someone very prominent is the owner of a little known word: 'linux'. I believe his name is Linus.

    What I'm getting at is that yes, in the sense of Linux (the OS), there is a controlling entity, and it could be said that he and the lieutenants could authorize a group to do said logo control. That way end users (read newbies) don't get burned and go back to their previous OS. (Note, not all end users are newbies, but I doubt a long time linux user would give up that easily.)

  • Recently shopping for a KVM, I saw several proudly bearing the linux-tested.com logo. In fact, *all* of the KVM's at this particular store had the logo. No big surprise, they're KVM's, right? I bought a Belkin 4-port OmniCube (Model F1D094) and thought nothing more of it.

    That is, until I saw this story. I decided to go see what linux-tested.com had to say about this KVM (which works perfectly, btw.) The following are excerpts from their review [keylabs.com]:

    The OmniCube has keyboard control of switching via a short sequence of keys followed by an onscreen display which has no effect upon the display as generated by the host CPU.
    ...
    The OmniCube isn't packaged with software but does have internal key commands and on-screen display capabilities allowing for rapid switching of CPUs from the keyboard.

    These, and several other references to the same feature, seem perfectly normal. Except for one thing: This model has no on-screen display! I've sat here and switched through my boxes every single way the switch supports (button on the switch and 3 different keyboard shortcuts), and there's absolutely no on-screen indication of any kind. Just in case mine is broken, I got out the box, but there's no mention of an OSD. (The models that do have OSD's have '-OSD' at the end of their model number, and aren't called OmniCubes.)

    The model number on the KVM, and it's box, are the same one they gave in the review. The product name, OmniCube, is the same. So, question is, how could you possibly review a feature that didn't exist? Do they even look at the hardware they certify? I don't think I'd trust the 'linux-tested' logo for anything more complicated than a printer cable, cinsidering this obvious discrepancy.

    The point (I knew I had one) is, we need to come down on certification places that don't use valid (and repeatable) testing procedures just as hard as we do manufacturers that claim linux support but don't follow through. I, personally, am going to be complaining to linux-tested.com and belkin both, and I think next time I go to buy hardware, given the choice between two similar pieces, I'll take one without a fake linux-tested logo over one from a company who thinks, 'Hey, let's make some money off this linux thingy by [selling|buying] tested logos for hardware!'

    -Jade E.
    I don't usually rant this much, just haven't had enough caffeine lately.

  • Try netgear FA310TX. It's a 10/100 nic that is tested on linux, comes with a tweaked tulip driver, instructions for linux installation and my personal endorsement.

    Netgear did it right.
  • You think Realplayer's lack of Linux support is a drawback of Linux? I thought it was a feature.

    As for devices not working properly as advertised, well; shouldn't we boycott companies who use false advertising? Shouldn't be that hard to start a gnew web site that tracked Linux device support, and logged, tracked, and publicized companies who failed to live up to their promises.

    Just a thought.

  • I disagree with the earlier posts about having distros certify configurations or having Linus lay his 'seal of approval' upon each and any piece of hardware/ configuration that wants to put a logo on their boxes to inspire hope in the hearts of linux users...

    back when the MBA's hadn't heard of Linux we had our own solution in the community: search for information/ ask questions, and if you can't get the right answers, then it's really a hit or miss situation. If you go ahead anyways, at least you know to save your reciept.

    As the article points out, we can't trust the venders to give us straight answers about the products they sell.

    btw, my Belkin KVM works flawlessly, although it doesn't have USB ports...

  • Since the open source revolution is suppose to be a different
    paradigm than what most are use to why not use a different
    approach. How about a hardware incomparability certification.
    This could be run open by the community with a searchable
    database. This way we can point fingers and hopefully bad press
    at incomparable hardware.

    Of course this could get out of hand with "my Reheat Model 3456
    Microwave Oven is not linux comparable!!" But with some kind of
    planing and restrictions on it I am sure it would be a very good
    thing. While the amount of hardware out there is huge it is
    still finite in size, and as far as incomparable stuff it is
    growing ever smaller.

  • There's no way I'll ever buy from Netgear again. Why? Because the FA-310TX is the model number of their DEC 21140 card. It is blatantly and seriously dishonest of them to continue selling a card with the same model number, which is not compatible with the old card. A driver that works for the old card may not work with the new card.

    Can it be gotten to work? Certainly. At least, the NetBSD "tlp" driver should work with it. But I don't care; they owe me a new model number for their new model of card. :)

    Support goes beyond "do they provide drivers". The question is, how much thought are they giving to people who are depending on their published information, or who are checking model numbers for compatability? In Netgear's case, it's "screw you, we put drivers on a disk, and that's the end of our responsibility."

    I was using the D-Link cards based on the Via Rhine for a while. They're gone now, so I'm probably just gonna spend 2x as much on cards and use Intel EtherExpress cards; the current 10/100 models work in all 4 BSD's, presumably all the Linuxes out there, and probably everything else. They work well, they're cheaper than 3Com's overpriced crap, and the company is pretty good about adding revision #'s when they change hardware.

  • A liccensed logo (Score:3)

    by Felinoid ( 16872 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @09:19PM (#952644) Homepage Journal
    Two thoughts on this....

    One is you can have a trademarked logo that basicly means "We tested it and it works on Linux and we support Linux".
    No testing agentcy needed...
    This won't be as good as a central testing agentcy. However if the logo is enforced like the GPL has been enforced over the years then abusers of the logo can fix the problem by providing a software solution (a driver for the hardware) or fix the hardware. Eather way the problem is forgoten. This will get hardware support out a bit faster as well as companys will want to have the offical logo some will slap it on to discover it's a liccensed logo.

    Second thought is.... consummer fraud....

    Saying hardware works on Linux (or leaving you to believe it dose) by placing a logo to the effect on the pacage should be considered consummer fraud.

  • Re:There's no certification (Score:5)

    by cwis ( 208280 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @09:20PM (#952645)
    Shouldn't be that hard to start a new web site that tracked Linux device support

    Maybe you are looking for http://lhd.datapower.com/ [datapower.com]?

  • Oooooh, you are correct, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks! ;-)

  • This is nothing less than fraud. When you advertise something to be true, you _have_ to make sure it's true! You can't go around saying your snake oil will cure everything from arthritis to cancer, and you shouldn't be able to say "our stuff is compatible with linux" when it isn't, and you refuse to support it. Talk to your Better Business Bureau and see what you can do about getting your Truth in Advertising agency to breathe down their necks. You'll get their support or their Tux sticker, one way or another. ;)
    ---

  • Linux support (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I had a recent experience along these lines with a local ISP. I have a customer who I setup with a Linux server running simple dialup for his network to the ISP I mentioned above. His system was purring along perfectly until it suddenly began to have problems connecting to the ISP. He first called them to see if there was something wrong with their servers. "No, nothing wrong here" he was told "it must be your internet connect box". The ISP was not aware he was using a Linux box to connect. He brought the system in to be checked out thinking perhaps he had a modem failure. I could find nothing wrong other than no connect, it would dial-in but would drop connect right after dial-in. Finally in frustration I reconfigured the system with my own personal account at another ISP. Bingo! Instant connect! I put in a call to the tech support at the customers ISP and was again told that it must be our system that was at fault and not the ISP. I mentioned to the tech support that this was a Linux box and that I knew the ISP was running its own system on Linux servers. The tech support person said "Well I'm sorry, but we don't support Linux dial-ins!". After getting off the phone with this genius I attempted to get in touch with the system administrator. Finally I got through to the head admin who sheepishly admitted that "Yes, about the time the customer had begun to have problems we did add some new equipment" and that there "was this more stable phone number" that the customer could try. I changed the dialup info in the customers system to this "more stable" phone number and solid connects from then on. I found out later that the person who had setup this new equipment (an MSCE NT guy) had not bothered to make sure it would work with anything but Windoze. It goes to show that even if these clowns owe their living to those Linux servers they still act as if Windoze is the only game in town. They ended up costing both my customer and myself money because of their stupidity.
  • You can get the latest version by typing "vi /usr/doc/HOWTO/Hardware-HOWTO".

    This doesn't help with closed-source software (like HP's WebAdmin software for its printers) which is advertised as "Linux-compatible" but is really "RedHat-compatible". And no, saying "don't use closed-source software" isn't always an option here, either.

  • Re:Collaborative vendor certification is the way! (Score:3)

    by Azog ( 20907 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @09:34PM (#952650) Homepage
    I second the motion!

    Besides certifying hardware, there's all sorts of other things that such a joint business could do... sponsor benchmarks, pay for proper documentation of the kernel internals, negotiate with hardware vendors, etc.

    Also, it would provide a unified "Linux" company that could help provide some focus for the rest of the business world when they deal with the Linux community. Right now, Red Hat seems to get that honor. And, no disrespect intended to Red Hat, but they aren't Linux, even though people talk about "Linux 6.2"...

    Companies that ought to sponsor such a venture, each putting up a small amount of money:
    • Red Hat
    • Mandrake
    • VA Linux
    • Andover
    • SUSE
    • [your favorite distribution]
    • IBM
    • others?


    Non profit orgs like Debian should get representation for free. RMS, ESR, and other deserving people should be involved in some way that isn't a burden for them, and helps keep the thing rolling in the right direction.

    The company could make money by trademarking a logo and licensing it to hardware manufacturers who pass the Linux compatibility test.

    This would be a good thing!
    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
  • In a recent interview I read (don't got a URL, sorry), nVidia specfically said issues with licensed technology restricts them from having fully open drivers.

    Of course you can make the case for opening parts of the drivers, etc., but this is what they said.
  • Okay, here's a question: Why would anyone trust a *vendor* when they say that their product is ''Linux tested''? Whenever I'm in the market for new hardware, I find relevant 'net documents from trusted sources that document whether a piece of hardware works in linux or not, and *how* it works: is it a crappy workaround, or a standard method?

    Is the documentation I find always perfect, 100% accurate? No, but it's generally more accurate than anything I've ever found from a vendor. I've found this to be true in other OSes, as well.

    So, what resort is there for vendors? Other than slapping the ''linux-tested'' logo on their box, they can donate free hardware to trusted people (if it's a kernel issue, to kernel developers; otherwise, it's up to them to find someone reputable) who can then test it and support it with documentation. That's even assuming the vendor cares about linux support at all; if it doesn't, then they can slap their logo on as many boxes as they want; they'll either get linux users pissed at them and lose that business (which they don't care about anyway), or someone will hack drivers and support that hardware the proper way.

  • I don't know what the heck you're doing, but I've never had problems with hardware working on _Windows_. Companies, other than Apple (and Be back when it was making BeBoxen - wish I could get my hands on one of those) just don't make hardware that the vast vast vast majority of end users can't / won't be able to.

    Linux is only Free if your time is worth Nothing

  • Hmmm... did you ever contact linux-tested.com with this issue?
  • [snip] MS have their certification logos and they can be trusted.

    Yep, if something has a "Microsoft Certified" logo on it, I go right out and buy it! I place all of my trust in Microsoft. They have consistently been open and honest, and wouldn't allow their logo to be misused for the sake of making money. And their QA department is so good, I am sure that they have time to make sure every "Microsoft Certified" product meets their strict quality control standards!

    (See my other post about trust; the only people I'd believe are those who actually got the thing working, not the vendor of the hardware.)

  • This is just stupid. People are so used to their harware not working that they just assume its not going to work. Come on.. Think about it. What is a piece hardware as far as a computer is concerned? Its a load of I/O ports and memory addresses. Writing to port 220 should not affect my network card. Just my sound card. Writing to memory address 300000 should only affect my graphics card.

    It's the stupid designers not following specifications closely enough. If any other industry did this, they'd be stopped. Computers they just find excuses.
  • That is not a problem here since its hardware, they could only be saying 'we support linux vx.x.x'. Unless you count the patches distros such as mandrake have....

    Jeroen

  • Sue the buggers! Sue them for cost of equipment, cost of getting the damn thing to work, the time taken, the mental anguish caused, the harm done to family life caused by your being away for so long getting the thing to work. Might work.
  • I was told that Microsoft designs their operating systems on Compaq computers. Specifically NT on proliant servers.

    Maybe if Slackware, Redhat, and the rest of the distros developed on one specific brand (Dell, IBM, etc..) it would help the general public get over their fears of compatibility issues.
  • The day you start to be afraid of what they might think about a front page is the day they win....

    You could also say that the frontpage is more representative of the rest slashdot :)

    Jeroen

  • ...

    all those vendors, and the other distributions... certifying a product that works on all of them.... think the attached software, more than the hardware... with all the different standards... /opt, /usr/local, etc etc, not to mention rc.d stuff... this is going to be a nightmare. Why do you think a lot of commercial software aims at RedHat? Because they have a reasonable semblance of guessing where to put things....

    Is it right? No. But it's all that can realistically be expected.

    How do you determine which distributions get 'power' in the venture? Does RobertGormleyLinux 1.1 earn me a spot?

  • ... but " Tested with Linux" does not mean "We provide Technical Support for Linux"...

  • Re: Professional Certification for Linux (Score:4)

    by ai731 ( 36146 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @11:20PM (#952670)
    I think it would be very beneficial for linux in general if some of the large, more trusted names in Linux got together to organize a Linux Certification system. The whole linux name would gain some credibility if Red Hat, Corel, Mandrake, Suse, VA Linux, etc., formed something by which they would have the power to give and take "Linux Certified" stickers or something and give out "Linux Certified System Administrator" certifications.

    Linux Professional Institute [lpi.org] is just starting to do this. They've written and beta tested exams for Linux System Administration 101 and 102. From the sample questions on the website, it looks like they've done a competant job. I'm planning to sit the exam in a month or two.

    Certification needs to be judged by peer review. If competant people agree that the LPI only certifies competant people, then we have a de-facto standard that is worth something. It doesn't matter who set it up in the first place.

    ai731

    --

  • Re:There should be Certified Distro X hardware (Score:3)

    by LenZ ( 1441 ) on Thursday July 06, 2000 @11:52PM (#952672) Homepage

    That's why I think there should be Distro certified hardware instead. (for example, SuSE supported would have a chameleon)

    JFYI: SuSE already does this for quite a while (about a year). See our Hardware - Certification [www.suse.de] pages for more info about this. I can assure you - we bang those boxes hard, it is not just a simple test installation.

  • One problem is the following syllogism:
    a) a testing lab won't exist if it loses money
    b) a testing lab wil try to make money
    c) there will be 'competition' in the 'testing-labs' market
    d) You'll not know one 'works in linux' logo from the next.

    I think it's probably better for it to remain in the hands of the distributions. Their names and their support structures are already in place.

    Until then the best thing we can do is to
    a) write to mailing lists about incompatabilities found, keep everyone informed; then
    b) vote with your wallet. Don't buy those that lie or only pay lip-service to their support claims.

    FatPhil
  • What about Linus? He's got the trademark on the word "Linux", IIRC. Would he not have the power to demand that a company making Linux-broken objects stop using his trademark (since it dilutes the mark to have it associated with stuff that doesn't work)? If this is not strong enough, it seems that he could simply trademark "Certified Linux Compatible" with a little Tux logo and tell us to look for that.

  • You know, I had a similar experience back when I used to use Linux. I want to float an idea here. This particular situation might be more Linux's fault than the vendor's.

    Linux has had a rather sad history of making incompatible changes from version to version just for the sake of making changes. It wouldn't even be so bad if you could just recompile and move on -- but in a disturbing number of situations, you can't even do that.

    I will add one thing, too, at the risk of being labeled a troll: I hear cheers from the Linux-using populace when hardware vendors grumble about having to rewrite their drivers for Win2k. I hear angry self-righteous posturing when hardware vendors don't even know (and whose fault is that?) that they have to rewrite their drivers for the next major kernel revision.

  • Step 1: Does the box have just the Tux logo (goto 3) or does it also say something like "it works with Linux"? (goto 2)

    Step 2: Tell tech support that the box says "it works with Linux" but it doesn't. Keep them on the phone until they fix your problem. If they refuse, tell the store manager where you bought the product, write a letter to the BBB and (depending on the situation) contact a lawyer.

    Step 3) If it's just a logo, WRITE a PAPER letter to the company saying that you are considering buying one of their products, but you want to know what the penguin logo signifies. If they claim (in writing on paper) that it means "it works with Linux", goto step 2. If they don't respond or say "it's just decoration", tell the store manager where you bought the product and write a letter to the BBB. (this is assuming it really is Tux and not just a generic penguin--if it's generic you can't claim you were defrauded).

    I don't know why people keep insisting on reinventing the wheel for these problems. This is not a Linux-specific issue. What if you bought a powerstrip and it pictured a man with a toaster and a laser printer plugged into it but the instructions said "never plug a toaster and laser printer into the same strip"? Same damn issue: misleading (if not outright false) claims made on a box.
    --
  • I know I don't have any fancy links to prove my points but here they are anyway.

    RMS did NOT invent Free Software. In the beginning all software was free/open-source. The original hackers didn't care about closing everything up to keep it "secure" (Many still don't) That was the invention of the PHBs that followed. RMS crusaded to re-free the software.

    That "side effect" of free software being changable is one of the original reasons for leaving the source open, and the reason the PHBs shut the source down (it's very hard to sell software that's open source.) The freedom of choice that RMS so vehemotly supports is the real "side effect."

    In fact some of those old free programs are still in use today, just another side effect.

    Devil Ducky
  • I use a Linksys KVM with *bsd, NT, and Linux. Works fine, and the box it comes in says Linux is supported, as does most, if not all of their products boxes, say. I haven't had a need to call their techsup though. :)

  • >Then why are you using c++ style commenting?

    I use // instead of /* one line of text */
    simply because I'm lazy, and GCC didn't complain.

    That's why I code after all, too lazy to do anything else, and GCC didn't complain. :-)

    Devil Ducky

  • Re:A Lesson In How To Use Market Forces (Score:3)

    by JoeWalsh ( 32530 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:12AM (#952703)
    Even in my story I spent too much time fiddling with that NetGear, all because I didn't feel like driving back out to Best Buy.

    You're absolutely right about us needing to return stuff that doesn't work as advertised. I've personally resolved to start treating computer hardware like I would any other physical item I purchase - if it doesn't work right away, without problems, I'll return it for a refund.

    I made that resolution a few years ago. When Windows 98 was first released, my wife and I bought a new Compaq Presario unit for her parents. We brought it to their house, set it up for them...and the danged thing crashed right away. No problem, it's just Windows, right? Well, it was crashing every three to five minutes!
    Instead of taking it back right away, we spent our entire week off trying to fix that thing. We spent time with Compaq on the phone, did the system restore thing a few times, got a replacement HDD shipped to us overnight, and all that stuff. Nothing made it stop crashing. Finally, at the end of our week off, we brought it back to the store and got another one. That one worked perfectly right away, right out of the box.

    That's when we decided we'd never do that again. If some piece of hardware doesn't work properly right out of the box, we return it. Either it's poorly engineered and requires special attention to set it up, or it's broken in some other way. Whatever the case, my time's too valuable to spend on this sort of garbage, so I don't bother any more.

    I hate returning things, but I hate wasting my time even more. I'm glad you brought this issue up.

  • What can we do? The one thing consumers have always been able to do. Take it back, and demand your money back. If they won't give you your money, scream a lot. :)
  • According to the story the device had a Tux Logo on it, it never said "Linux Compatible." And even if it did say that all they would have to prove is they had one succesful test on a linux machine and then they broke no false advertising laws only stretched a few.

    The only obvious law they would have broken would be trademark infringement (Linux owns "Linux" and all of it's pronounciations :) But it is that infringement that is the threat behind the stance Microsoft, Novell, IBM, Apple, and everyone else who support 'Compatible' third-party products.

    I don't think Linus would have the time, but he could nominate someone to look into these situations on his behalf. That someone would be helped by the entire community pointing out the offenders and then (s)he would test the complaint and take the neccessary action (a letter to the manufacturer should generally be enough.)

    Devil Ducky

  • There IS a differnt Cert (Score:3)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@NospAM.carpanet.net> on Friday July 07, 2000 @04:26AM (#952708) Homepage
    I dunno if anyone else has mentioned it (looked didn't see it) but I believe there is has an "Open Hardware Certification" which does NOT garauntee Linux Compatibility but is actually better.

    To get the certification vendors must publish enough information to write a driver and make it available to the public.

    http://www.openhardware.org/

    -Steve
  • As noted in my article submission, IO Gear couldn't give me a tested configuration. If they had said RedHat 6.2 with default kernel, etc..etc...that would have been fine. But they couldn't do that.
  • If it says it works with RedHat at least you could assume it would work with a comparable configuration on another distribution. My main problem with this company was that they couldn't even give me one configuration they tested it on.
  • Don't bother with expensive test-based Linux certification. That's not going to work except for very few configurations (i.e. out-of-the-box Red Hat). Instead, Linux needs a certification that says all drivers are open sourced and all specs published, including support for all advertised features.
  • We use Belkin OmniCube 2-port KVM switches here. Several people who use Microsoft Intellimice have had problems with the mouse not responding after a switch, requiring flipping back and forth before the mouse will respond again. I use a Logitech MouseMan, and I've never had such problems. I believe it is the mouse that is causing the problems, not the switchbox because I can switch the box with someone else's and it still works for me and occasionally goofs up for them.

  • I'll second that. My four port Linksys switch runs very well.

    I can't get it to switch with the keyboard though. I have to use the buttons on the front of the box. Their website wasn't any help to me either. I've never lost either a mouse or a keyboard in about 4 months of use.

  • <Disclaimer>
    I work for LinuxCare.
    </Disclaimer>

    This service is currently being offered by Linuxcare Labs [linuxcare.com]. We currently offer vendor nuetral product certification designed to demonstrate compatibility with the Linux kernel and other major subsystems of a GNU/Linux operating system environment. Working in this capacity I have learned about many of the challenges that come with trying to provide independent validation of Open Source based product.

    There are many challenging questions to answer when certifying Linux/Open Source based products. For example, which distribution are tested against by default? How do you treat hardware that is only partially supported, i.e. 3D video acceleration, USB, fire wire, etc. How do you make a hardware vendor understand that the certification of their products depends on external factors over which they have no control, i.e. distribution packaging practices or the ability or willingness of Free Software developers to write a driver? Do you require everything to work "out of the box" or do you allow post installation configuration steps to be taken? For example, many sound cards on the market today won't work after a default installation of most distributions, and require that you download, compile, and install the latest version of ALSA [alsa-project.org] to support the card.

    Answering these questions is a constant balancing act between meeting the needs of the product vendor and delivering a true benefit to the consumer. In the end, certification loses its value if strict standards are not adhered to. However, at this point in the game it is difficult to convince a vendor to even consider investing in having their products tested under Linux without making it a very attractive proposition for them. What this usually translates to is going the extra mile to "make" a product work. When Linux compatibility testing is no longer optional for computer product vendors, the burden of finding out and documenting how to support a particular product will be shifted to the product vendor.

  • Compaq may do it. 3Com has been pretty good about at least screen-printing revision numbers on boards, so you *can* tell that the 3C905 you got isn't the version listed as supported. Still, all of the vendors have some amount of this, the question is, how incompatible are they willing to be?

    I would not have minded if NetGear had introduced the "FA-310TX Rev B".
  • Good questions... Suggestions:

    If RobertGormleyLinux can pony up 4 thousand dollars, it gets a spot. Or, if it is a non-profit, and has more than 4 thousand users, it gets a spot. Maybe not perfect, but it's a start, isn't it?

    As far as difficulty of certification - yeah, it wouldn't be easy. That's why the certification group would need to have some money.

    "Linux Compatible" would have to be defined rather carefully. There might have to be quite a bit of fine print. But...

    At least when you went out to buy a bunch of 100-Mbit network cards, if there was a "Linux Compatible" penguin logo on it, and a note like
    • This product is supported and tested on Linux Kernel 2.2.10 and up, as included in RedHat 5.2 or higher, SUSE 6.1 or higher, Mandrake 6.0 or higher, and Debian 2.5 or higher. Other distributions will likely work as well.

    Frankly, that would give me a warm fuzzy feeling and I'd be a lot happier about buying those cards. Even if I was running RobertGormleyLinux 1.1 - after all, if I was eleet enough to run that, I would know what kernel version and patches I had... :-)

    Obviously things are trickier for software. Still, I think it would be better than what the Linux world has now...

    The rc.d stuff isn't that bad. There's two main styles of doing it (Sys V or BSD) and a few variations. Perhaps one of the things the hypothetical org could do is help standardize things, or write some nice flexible installation scripts that deal with the differences out there.

    It couldn't hurt, could it?


    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close