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?

Comments

This is unavoidable

[cowscows]

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

[linuxonceleron]

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.

No single controlling entity = no certification

[dustpuppy]

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.

[Bad_CRC]

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"

Market is too broken - no central linux regulator

[jonnythan]

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.

what i'm thinking...

[fluxrad]

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

KVM Switches & linux.

[Hardware_Bob]

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.
--------

Re:KVM Switches & linux.

[alhaz]

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.

Re:KVM Switches & linux.

[alhaz]

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.

Collaborative vendor certification is the way!

[dustpuppy]

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.

Re:Collaborative vendor certification is the way!

[Azog]

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)

A Lesson In How To Use Market Forces

[Hrunting]

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.

Re:A Lesson In How To Use Market Forces

[JoeWalsh]

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.

Linux-tested.com already certifies hardware, badly

[Jade E.]

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:

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.

A liccensed logo

[Felinoid]

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

[cwis]

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/?

Maybe I'm pedantic...

[Robert S Gormley]

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

Re: Professional Certification for Linux

[ai731]

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 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

[LenZ]

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 pages for more info about this. I can assure you - we bang those boxes hard, it is not just a simple test installation.

There IS a differnt Cert

[TheCarp]

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