Repost: Hardware Compatibility List

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I am reposting this, as my original seem to be mangled when I got 
a copy back from the list:

On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 16:03, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> I would prefer to talk about the hardware supported under the entire
> GNU/Linux operating system, not just the kernel.  And I have already
given
> reasons for leaving out hardware manufacturers that hurt us.
> 
> > nVidia *should* be listed. Furthermore, the list *should* make it
very
> > clear that the drivers are not open source. This would serve both
sides.
> 
> There's no reason to "serve" NVidia at all.  It is not our job to help
them
> sell more people on dependence.  It should be our job to give people
> software freedom.

NVidia *is* supported under XFree86 with the NV driver.
Are you saying that even if there is an included driver that is not
encumbered in unacceptable ways, the listing should STILL be dropped
because they ALSO offer their own driver?

I can't agree with that, unless you drop ALL hardware in the XFree
compatible list UNLESS it has a free/open driver available?

I can't advocate that, unless you just like short lists.

With Windows consuming 92% of the machines out there, drawing the line
too sharply will only HELP them, not help Linux. Potential Linux User:
"I looked at the hardware (in)compatibility list and NONE of my cool
hardware is supported, oh well, forget THAT!" So much for the "movement"
then if/when that starts happening.

I suppose you can push the point as far as you like, because all ends of
the spectrum should be represented, I just don't see that being a short
or long term gain for your political movement.

My definition of what should be in the hardware list is "it can be made
to run... maybe not even completely" regardless of the licensing of the
means... if the licensing matters then by all means include a field in
the table to that effect. That doesn't affect the COMPATIBILITY of the
hardware at a TECHNICAL level. It affects compatibility of the hardware
at a LICENSING level. A hardware list should address both to be a good
one, IMHO.

Maybe a red-yellow-green scale for the acceptability?
BLACK = Its dead Jim. Does Not Work. Ever. Run Away. Run Away Faster.
RED = only works with proprietary drivers, avoid.
YELLOW = partly works with only open/free(your definition) drivers, may
only work completely with vendor/closed driver, you choose which to use.
GREEN = works completely with open/free(your definition) drivers. No
problems here. Rock on. 

Under that scale, ATI would probably be green (I don't know), and NVidia
would be YELLOW. NV is openly/freely (your definition) available, so the
hardware IS compatible without the licensing issue so dear to so many.

If the NV driver didn't exist, the NVidia would be red, because it CAN
work, it IS compatible, but only through the problematic driver.

I am just tossing ideas out here.
-- 
Exile In Paradise
"Our attitude with TCP/IP is, `Hey, we'll do it, but don't make a big
system, because we can't fix it if it breaks -- nobody can.'"

"TCP/IP is OK if you've got a little informal club, and it doesn't make
any difference if it takes a while to fix it."
		-- Ken Olson, in Digital News, 1988




[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux