Slashdot Mirror
Vendors Paying Lip Service To Linux Support?
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?
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.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
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.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
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
EverCode
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
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
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...
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.
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.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
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?
--- Can i borrow your Clue-Stick(tm)? I need to go beat a few people with it...
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.)
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.
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
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
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.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.--------
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
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!
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.
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.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
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
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??
He knows enough to ruin the world and his own. Does he know enough to change himself and the world as well?
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
:)
I really like that site.
But they won't get any more, regardless. Given this forum, maybe they won't get yours either.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
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
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.
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 Windows games.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
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.
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.
Start Running Better Polls
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:
...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.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
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.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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.
I don't actually exist.
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. ;)
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
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.
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.
Linux is only Free if your time is worth Nothing
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
Hmmm... did you ever contact linux-tested.com with this issue?
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.
[Connection closed by foreign host]
You could also say that the frontpage is more representative of the rest slashdot :)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Nooo... (s)he got mod-ded down because the post was offtopic. But I'm sure this was the first time that's happened. Hell with a username of TrollBoy3 and an email address of Troll@moderators.kiss.my.ass, I'm sure they post lot's of meaningful discussion.
Hayden
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
One of the greatest things about Linux in general is that there is no central authority (well, ok Linus perhaps, but he doesn't really count because his authority is earned) who would dictate what is ok and and what isn't. A committee would be even worse. A "republic" of individuals who plays by a loose set of more or less commonly agreed rules is the only way to go. A lot like the scientific community.
If a company puts a sticker on a product saying that "Designed for Linux" and it doesn't work, then return the bloody thing and demand your money back. You're entitled to this even without "a central authority".
PS. And yes, I do have a problem with authority figures.
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?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
... but " Tested with Linux" does not mean "We provide Technical Support for Linux"...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Of course, unlike Winblows, Linux (as a whole) can't certify every piece of hardware out there. That's why I think there should be Distro certified hardware instead. (for example, SuSE supported would have a chameleon) This assures buyers that the hardware will work on specific versions. This eliminates wild, untrue claims and makes it easy to get set up. Hardware vendors would most likely strive to make more linux compatable hardware and compete for more "badges" from distrobutions.
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
Linux Professional Institute 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
--
"I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent"
Well, all integrated hw on the K7V board is supported by Linux (not counting the softmodem, but then again; who whould use that crap anyway?).
Just my four penn'rth.
When Guven Linux is (finally) released, we plan to use a hardware certification scheme. It won't cost anyone any money to register their hardware, so open hardware projects could even use it. Successful applicants will be able to display the appropriate logo on that particular model. Newer models would have to re-certify. for more information on Guven Linux, you can e-mail stevelord at btinternet dot com
Of all the things so big and small The best were never there at all!
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.
This is a real issue -- recently my company bought a compaq and a dell rack optimsed server -- both with prominent "RedHat Certified" notes. Both boxes do work but, in Compaq's you have to install their special kernel otherwise you can't see the 2nd PCI bus -- great for when you want to upgrade. Dell want you to install from a dell version of RH -- we just returned the box rather than even bother. In both cases we wasted a lot of our time with companies that claimed to support Linux but only did so in a sideways manner. In my opinion, this kind of thing should be eliminated by an independent certification board. At the very least we should have access to certification reports to avoid this kind of hassle.
Turnover is vanity; Profit is sanity; cash is reality
I've also seen them affixed to a stapler that works only half of the time. The intel inside logo works well there also. A garbage can is useful, hence not the best place for those stickers.
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
Why don't we have hardware tested by the LUGs for
certification. It would be fun, it would encourage participation, and it would increase consumer knowledge of new products=Advertising.And
we could even have a little logo from each LUG that tests the hardware. I think that it would be kind of cool.
-"You'll have plenty of time to sleep when you're dead."
We need Linux Standard Base, to develop further, and hopefully get all of the major distros on board. Then LSB need's a registered trademark of their own, which they can grant or yank. 3rd party verification companies or the distro companies themselves could act as agents granting the right to use the logo, but the LSB group would retain the ability to yank the logo, or yank the distro's right to grant logo privledges.
So, someone like RedHat could do their own verification of software to LSB, and then grant the right for that piece of software to use the logo. The LSB group could revoke that right if RedHat issued that right when they shouldn't have. Also, they could revoke RedHat's right to grant the logo, if they make too many bad grants.
Lotus certifies that Red Hat Linux 6 is a certified platform for running Lotus Domino. several other distributions are 'supported' but only redhat is 'certified'. This shows a vendor support commitment and specifies the distribution that it definitly works with. It is hard for an application or product to be certified to work with Linux as a whole, Specific distributions could certify products as working with them ,(runs on RedHat etc.)
A garbage can is a very useful place if you have an unwanted Win XX{,XXX} disk. Personally, I'd be willing to vouch for that it was (or should have been) designed for Windows.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
With MS and Novell, a number of our Fortune 100 customers started asking for this, and both MS and Novell are very open about what has to be done (both technically and procedurally) to receive their logo. For example, MS specifies specific applications, OS versions, HW configs, etc. You can read the thorny details here.
With Linux, however, to my knowledge none of our customers have asked for certification. Some have asked for compatibility with specific distros, while others simply require "Linux compatibility" (whatever that means). And unlike MS and Novell, there are no rules (formal or otherwise) about what testing needs to be done.
If the Linux community wants to be serious about certification, then formal testing procedures need to be defined, and an authority needs to be put in charge of the administration of the certification logo. Until that happens, each major HW manufacturer will continue to define their own procedures based on whatever business case they can justify.
Believe me, folks, if enough users start holding up their wallets and demand a specific type of Linix certification as a purchasing criteria, the HW manufacturers will listen.
north.coaster
Is it only Linux that this thing breaks?? Usually if something like this breaks Linux, I'd expect it to break other OSes as well.
Do you have any complaints in
Can you dual boot the machine and see if the problem is with your CPU box? (somebody else mentioned that some machines have a problem with unplugging mice).
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Use slashdot to publicly ridicule and warn against any company that makes these claims, but doesn't actually follow through.
People who buy hardware or software need to do a little bit of research first and make sure that others are able to use it.
OR, another idea would be a centralized database that allows everyone to put up information they have about hardware / software compatibility, as well as reviews and comments. (If anyone is actually interested in doing this, let me know at vulgrin@yahoo.com... as I might be interested in helping.)
Vulgrin
I sig, therefore I am.
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.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
You miss the point bonehead. This is about false advertising. Which is usually against the law...
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Linux is "the next best buzzword" in the industry and, like every new buzzword, many folks haven't the slightest clue what Linux is. Witness "Java", "XML", "Open Source", "CORBA", "COM", etc. The list goes on and on. It seems simply par for the course for a vendor to jump onto the Linux bandwagon by slapping a Penguin sticker on their hardware without a single day of testing. People want Linux because, to the general public, Linux is a brand new bright shiny object. Making something bright and shiny is the second best way to sell that object, next to showing said object alongside copious cleavage and/or smooth bare skin. And bright and shiny only applies to the outside, not the internals. Haul out the Penguin spray paint, Ma, we're joining the Linux crowd!
Curiouser and curiouser...
We could always create a black list of companies who do not live up to their promise. Maybe even some sort of Linux Compatible software registery where Linux compatible stuff can be listed and people give their feedback.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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. :)
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
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I suppose a company could certify and test their product on whatever the current kernel is at the time of product release, but a website that says "We found our XYZ widget to be completely compatible with the 2.0.36 kernel" doesn't help me much _now_. Hardware product lifecycles are sufficiently long to make "Supported in Linux" a dicey proposition without qualifications on just what is supported.
The commercial OS'es release updates so slowly it doesn't hurt hardware certifications as much - but doesn't anyone remember how long it took some hardware companies to get Win95 hardware support really right? In some cases, they had a year to prepare, and still had to scramble - I remember having to run DOS drivers for my SCSI card for almost 6 months before the real support got there.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
What if companies who promised that they were "linux compatible" are forced to agree to release the hardware specs and API under GPL? Even if the drivers and "support" that they provided sucked, it would still be completely possible to support the device, so long as it's not too reliant on it's software. Having open specs like that would be good for the market anyway, might allow consumers to actually have an idea what it is they are paying for :-)
/usr/bin/fortune
~
77' jeffs@wpi.edu
To do like Microsoft with their Logo program, we'd need some sort of central authority that would regulate who can and can't use the "Tux Certified" logo, and act accordingly when there are cheaters.
The problem is : how can we go after the "illegal" Tux logo users ? Who's going to pay the legal fees for this ?
For Microsoft this is easy to enforce, if they see someone using the M$ Logo inappropriately, they can sue their pants off for "Trademark Abuse" or something of the sort (IANAL). Who would own the trademark for Linux/TuxLogo ? Linus maybe ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Geez, you still use floppies?!? You're one of those people who said the iMac would fail, aren't you? Come on, unless it's a 486 or something, boot from CD!
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Call me crazy but it has never been a matter of Companies supporting linux it has always been more of linux supporting that companies hardware as few companies even help with the development of linux drivers for their products .. Could we really expect them to though .. They best we could really hope for is that could provide the source for a working driver and hope for the best (this in itself would be a big step)
HP don't support Linux across the board, but they do provide detailed documents on installing Linux on their servers, and they even have a certification program that ensures hardware combos work and have been tested. The quality of the boxes is good, and the support seems practical (when you call tech. support, they have no problems with Linux, and know their limitations). Good people IMHO.
You know, I really have to say in M$'s defense, that I have not had a single garbage can crash after installing their software into it.
Creepy
The box had a "LINUX DRIVERS INCLUDED" sticker and Tux logo on it. What surprised me when I opened it was that the Linux "driver" disk was actually a complete Turbo Linux distribution! Now, the problem with this is, I don't know how I'd find the driver modules to load on, let's say, a RH 6.2 install, but I still think it was pretty cool...
(BTW, it was recognized by my RH install, and worked fine, even without the Turbo Linux disk.)
-- Your Servant,
Your Servant, B. Baggins
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.
I just want to point out that I have bought two different versions of ethernet cards from Linksys (including the EtherFast 10/100), and each one worked with the tulip driver under linux. As far as trouble shooting goes, you really should go to their web site.
In fact, it is interesting to note that when you do a search for articles concerning the EtherFast 10/100, there are two: one on how to install under Windows 9.x, the other is how to install under Linux (note that there are no others, even NT). The article about linux even states that the tulip driver is on the disk provided by Linksys.
Now whether or not they will walk you through it on the phone or not, I dunno. But I never really need a company to do that. I'd rather just read some instructions and go through some online database than sit on the phone listening to elevator music while I wait for someone to get back from their smoke break.
Unfortunately, he has a controllerless/software 'winmodem', so replacing it has become a priority.
Looking into it, I was surprised that there are some decient PCI hardware modems now -- not just the winmodem crap.
The one getting the most discussion on Usenet is the Actiontech Call Waiting modem. One simple reason is that they have 6 pages of documentation for Windows setup...and 6 pages of documentation for Linux setup!
They're not just putting a Linux sticker on the box, they back it up. It's cheap for a hardware modem (~$70-80 before rebates), and is available in most stores and over the Internet.
Now, having said that, they do make controlerless modems, so make sure you get the right one.
Multitech, USR, Zoom, IBM, GVC, and a few other companies make PCI hardware modems that work with Linux, but it looks like they aren't promoting or supporting the Linux compatable hardware as much. (Corrections appreciated!)
Before getting zapped on a PCI modem, take a look at the detailed Winmodems are not modems page.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
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.
There are already a couple of sites that provide a way for folks to determine if a piece of hardware is "Linux friendly" - if not "Linux certified". The problem is that probably not that many people even know about them. Those that do know about them probably don't use them as much as they should - meaning that they should be putting their reviews on the site to assist someone else down the road.
<http://www.lhd.datapower.com>
Pretty sure that's the url for the Linux hardware database. pretty good site but still in the "building" stage for sure.
So, one thing we can do is to support the programs and sites and so forth that are already there.
Another thing - and this is a biggie - if you do your research ahead of time (you did didn't you?) and you find a vendor that doesn't support Linux, or gives that support "lip service" at best, then you should let them know that you find that attitude unacceptable in a hardware (or software) vendor, tell them you'll not spend *dime one* of your money with such a short-sighted company, and then ensure you tell other's about it.
I was recently looking for a tape drive. I run Red Hat - exclusively. I went to the HP site as I'd seen a reference somewhere or other to them having "linux-certified" drives. They do all right. For their "high-end" and very expensive "server" models that are completely out of line for purchase in a home-office environment. I don't *have* the kind of budget that can justify spending $1000 (or more) on a tape drive.
I asked about their "support" for drives that aren't "Linux certifited" as they had a couple of models that I *know* for a fact will work with a bit of tweaking of ftape and configs and so forth, you lose the software compression of course but you can have a usable tape drive.
Their response? "We don't support it." When I inquired further I determined that went so far as to "not support" the drives - even a brand-new drive purchased from them - UNLESS you could "test the drive" under MS Windows!
I don't even have a copy of Windows in my HOUSE, let alone on my system, and I'll be damned if I'll put another $100 in the pockets of Gates and Co. to be able to get "support" for *hardware* from a major vendor like HP.
I won't buy ANY HP products until such time as I can determine that they've managed to find their way "back to daylight" and have pulled their corporate heads out of their asses.
I'm not holding my breath.
The techs I spoke to were very sympathethic, indeed some of them ran Linux on their personal systems, but they don't make the decisions.
Vote with your wallet. Better yet, pass the word along about your experiences, good and bad, and simply refuse to do business with a company that "doesn't get it" until they do.
They understand dollars and cents.
You (we) don't need a "central authority" for Linux Certification. What we need is for the people that run Linux to make their voices heard about such things as the HP experience I had. Send the head of the company email and tell him (or her) how you feel. And that you'll not spend any money whatsoever with them until they see fit to change their attitudes.
Now, maybe one person doesn't make all that much difference to a company like HP. Nor the loss of one sale of one tape drive. But I assure you that if the CEO starts to see email flowing into his box from thousands of people, in a wide variety of job descriptions and purchasing abilities, he'll wake up. The moment he realizes that his short-sigthedness has cost his company easily a few million in sales he'll start to pay attention.
That's how the world really works.
Please note that my decision to run a "pure" Linux system is a personal choice. If someone else either wants, or needs, to run MS Windows then so be it. It should be a choice that you made on your own, not had shoved down your throat.
Even then, if you have a copy of Windows installed and are running a dual-boot config, the same things apply. Don't buy from people that don't support Linux in a fashion that you think is right. If you have Windows, and don't see any particular problem with having to test a piece of hardware under Windows to get the "support" of a major vendor like HP then fine.
Obviously, I do not share that view of the world.
What have you done to make the world a better place today? Got 30 seconds? Feed somebody. http://www.thehungersite.co
I mentioned the idea of an official "Linux inside" logo as a mind-share building mecahnism for PDAs and other embeded Linux systems to Maddog at The Bazaar. He liked the idea, however he did raise a question that I have not seen answered: Didn't the guy who created the classic tux image we so love and admire, never release it to the public domain or any other institution. To the best of his knowledge, the artist wanted to be given credit in exchange for its use.
What's the status of the copyright on the classic tux logo? Are we all conveniently using it without proper ackowledgement?
This is a problem for any institute that would incorporate the classic tux image into a logo and try to make money off of dictating its use.
I still think LI has not realized it's full potential in being an apolitical authoritative body to promote Linux. Leading some sort of effort in linux branding can give them a revenue stream too.
Just my $0.02
--Aaron Greenberg
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.
This is a logo and licensing agreement developed by the Linux Journal... it looks like it was designed to address these issues, particularly by licensing the logo for a $1.00US/year fee and retaining control over how it's used. More information can be found here.
-MattT *** Not speaking for my employer, or any other sentient beings ***
maybe for a hardware or software product to be deemed "linux compatible" all It should need is a preliminary OPEN SOURCE driver, and OPEN API's / Well Documented features.
If the linux community has atleast a semi-functional driver and truely open documents about the product; you know damn well it will atleast SOON be linux compatible for everyone.
This way, If it doesnt work for you; atleast you have the tools to fix it.
i had just finished attempting to install a 3com nic on a failing motherboard and windows kept acting up during driver instalation
A friend of mine works in the IT department at a very large local automotive wrecking yard. (And, since we're both car geeks as well as computer geeks, we get a lot of free car parts!)
They have a fairly large LAN with a database of available parts as well as a website with a parts search, all of which he administers.
One day, he peeled off the "Designed for Windows 95" sticker from one of his computers, wiped the oil and grease from the side of the car crusher, and stuck it there.
To Microsoft's credit, they really know how to make a good sticker. Despite the harsh conditions, the sticker was still mostly there the last time I dropped by to pick up some stuff. There's a big red paint scrape across the front of it now from when one of the front-end loader operators grazed it with the 3" tall remains of a Suzuki Samurai. (He also busted up part of the control panel, so the yard's owner made a big stink about it.)
'Course, I'd love to be the guy who gets to put a big pile of M$ products into the crusher and then hit the green "Cycle Start" button... :)
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
No, but I bet the can gets punched and kicked a lot more now.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Sure. But look at these far more blatant examples that we, as computer users and therefore hardware buyers, have tolerated:
It started out small enough. An Intel 486 at 100MHz can be either a 486DX3-100 (33MHz internally multiplied by 3 for 99MHz) or the real (and more common) thing, the 486DX4-100 (25MHz x 4 for 100MHz). And we tolerated it. (In fact, I think you'd probably want the 486-99, since the bus would have to be faster!)
Then came the "Plug and Play" ISA cards, where you still have to set up the card's hardware with a little setup program. That's *not* Plug 'n Play.
Now, we tolerate computer speakers that claim to be rated to 100W + "PMPO" ("Peak Music Power Output", whatever that is), despite the fact they're powered from a little 9V 300mA AC adapter. (P= EI = 9 x 0.3 = 2.7 watts, so how can the output power be greater than the input power?) Speaking as a former professional audio technician (I've done sound for Harry Belafonte, The Three Tenors, Garth Brooks, etc. in full concert settings), generally a 100 watt amplifier weighs about 0.3-0.5 pounds per watt. An el-cheapo pair of "100 watt" computer speakers don't even weigh a pound.
Next comes "PC100" RAM. PC100 certification is supposed to be regulated by Intel, but they obviously don't watch it too carefully. I recently bought some SDRAM that wouldn't work when I kicked the CPU bus up to the rated 100MHz. Now, the chips are rated at 10 nanoseconds. Since time = 1/frequency, 10 nanosecond RAM should work at 100MHz, and therefore it's good 100MHz RAM. But the Intel specification requires the chip latency to be under 8nS for a PC100 sticker. This was *not* PC100 SDRAM. Imagine trying to explain this to the computer store $8.00/hr "technician" dork who considers himself to know everything and doesn't even speak English fluently. (Not that English is a prerequisite to computer knowledge, but, let's face it, it *is* the language of the industry.) The solution was their "PC133" SDRAM, which is really only PC100, because the latency is 8nS, not the ?5?6?nS latency called for by Intel's PC133 specification.
How about all those really crappy little CPU fans that say on the label "ball bearing"? Ever opened one up? I've only ever opened one up where I did find ball bearings, and they were made of plastic, and had fused together (causing the fan to stop). Most of the rest use sintered bronze sleeve bearings, which are actually superior for small cooling fans, but they're "accidentally" mislabeled as "ball bearing".
Now, the far less clear issues of Linux hardware compatibility. Of course, they'll have a field day with this one.
Bottom line, don't trust hardware vendors/manufacturers as far as you can throw them. They're in a fiercely competitive business, trying to move product any way that they can. Lots of really tiny computer companies just import stuff right off the boat from China and Taiwan, where truth in advertising has never been much of a priority, and where the language difference is a plausible excuse they can use if they get caught. I'd like to avoid Chinese/Taiwanese stuff for that reason, but Japanese and American-made hardware are virtually non-existant.
My rule of thumb? If there are spelling errors or outrageous claims on the box or in the manuals, I don't buy the product. Stick with good name brands where possible. And if you want a really good set of computer speakers (not the generic crap), go to your local stereo store. Buy a nice stereo with good speakers (Polk, Acoustic Research, Cerwin Vega, whatever), a nice amplifier (remember the watts to pounds rule of thumb), and tell the guy you need an adapter to allow you to hook up your Sony Discman. That adapter will very nicely connect your stereo to your sound card, and lemme tell you, your MP3 collection never sounded better.
Oh, and, unlike the little computer speakers, a real stereo system is actually UL/CSA approved, meaning that it's that much less likely to cause a fire when it breaks.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Well, maybe the card isn't so bad, but everybody that buys them for use with linux has problems.
Go to questionexchange... look for ethernet questions, a dissproportionate amount involve the tulip driver and linksys cards.
<Disclaimer>
I work for LinuxCare.
</Disclaimer>
This service is currently being offered by Linuxcare Labs. 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 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.
I know Ada well, and GNAT is pretty flexible on Linux.
Debian is the best distribution anyway, if you want stability.
"...we are moving toward a Web-centric stage and our dear PC will be one of
EverCode
I work as a Network Administrator for a middlin sized university. I assure you that Linux is hardly the only OS/product with vendor support issues.
If you deal with any kind of large numbers of servers and workstations, network equipment, etc, you'll find the vendors really love to play the finger pointing game.
We've spent as long as 4 months of staff time doing packet captures to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a vendor had problems with a certain backbone switch. After the product was discontinued, they released internal memos and technotes which revealed they had known about the problem internally for months prior to our experience with it. But it was cheaper for them to point fingers, than to replace the equipment with updated fixed models.
The only real defense against this is to cease buying from that vendor, and tell them the reason why. It isn't good enough to just tell the salesman....that will never get back to anyone in design or management. You'll have to send a message to customer service, or the managment, or both.
I can't of course name any names for fear of retribution...(not from the vendor, but from my superiors who are typically far more concerned about appearances, than the realities of what works and what deosn't.)
However, you'll find that a number of highly prominent vendors/manufacturers will play the same games, not just with Linux support, but with support of any kind.
Example:
A friend ordered a new laptop, with (ugh!) W2K and a DVD in March.
So far delivered and returned:
Win98 with a CD
Win 95 with a DVD
NT4.0 with a cd
NT 4.0 with a DVD
After that one he went off on the VP of Marketing for the company who told him that W2K was a free upgrade from NT4, just go to this web page and fill out form XXX.
Upon arrival at the web page, the offer for free upgrade had expired 30APR2000....well after the original shipment, but too late to help now.
He shipped it back on Monday....we'll see how long it takes to get it back.
In this case, the company really blew it. He had reasons for wanting that particular laptop...and so, is holding out for it.
Unfortunately for the aforementioned company, he's also responsible for ordering PC's for the company where he works....that companies contract was not renewed....and another is now selling him 500+ PC's per year.
Don't take the crap....just send it back, and tell them in no uncertain terms, this is not acceptable, and you're taking your business to company XXX instead.
i can never get those damn things off without a screwdriver. it's easier to use the 1" x 1" FreeBSD stickers and put over it. looks excellent as well.
Lint^^