Slashdot Mirror
Hardware Manufacturers that Actively Support Linux?
wirefarm asks: "I know there is are lot of well-supported pieces of hardware for Linux, but I was wondering, which vendors really go out of their way for the community?
While tracking down drivers for a wireless PCMCIA card today, I found that the vendor boasted of having Linux support, but it was seemed that they were actually touting drivers that were community-developed, rather than written with any help of the company. So my question is this: Which companies really stand out when it comes to providing specs and developing drivers?"
I was very pleased to find that Linksys was offering source drivers for my wireless USB network device, and that NVIDIA offers Linux source drivers as well (I've been out of the Linux loop for a while). I just wish more hardware vendors would follow their example and start supporting non-standard operating systems.
damnit! Sorry for leaving that tag open... I promise to preview my next post!
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
And the fact that all I had to do was add an
Option "TwinView"
Option "SecondMonitorHorizSync" "30 - 110"
Option "SecondMonitorVertRefresh" "50 - 160"
Option "TwinViewOrientation" "LeftOf"
Option "MetaModes" "1600x1200,1600x1200; 1600x1200,NULL"
To my XFree86Config-4 to enable duall-head configuration pleases me to no end.
X running at 3200x1200 on 19" and 22" monitors is just too sweet.
Now if only I could get the GNOME menu bars to extend across both desktops...
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
"Epson have[sic] ..."
No, not sic. It's a British (and Australian) convention to treat a company as a group of individuals, a plural. This makes a lot more sense than American, which can't make up its mind whether companies are singular or plural. Both of the following are acceptable in American, although the first more so: "IBM is the leader in memory technology; they have just released a new 1TB memory module." "IBM is the leader in memory technology; it has just released a new 1TB memory module."
Disclaimer: my Australian sample size is 1, and my British sample size not much larger. I'm an American who is trying to switch to the British convention for obscure political reasons (I don't like the idea of companies as entities comparable to individuals -- it removes responsibility and encourages unethical behavior).
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
That's precisely why I want to switch to British style here. Anyway, American still allows inconsistency ("IBM has ...; they have ..."). Just about everywhere, companies are singular entities, whether or not they are people. Anyway, if companies are people in America, why don't we say "IBM is the largest consulting company; he is also the best"? Nobody ever refers to a person as "it". Even cats and dogs generally get a he or she (even when actual sex is unknown). But not corporations.
But we are now way off-topic. ObOnTopic: Intel has been improving lately on Free Software stuff.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
American usage does NOT allow inconsistency. Your example ("IBM has ...; they have ...") is gramatically incorrect in America and any other English-speaking country. Just because some people talk or write inconsistently doesn't make it gramatically correct. Even William Safire (or his editor, if he has one) makes mistakes.
In addition, it is untrue that "companies are people in America." Companies, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, trusts, banks, charities, fraternal organizations, etc. are fictitious entities that have been accorded legal standing, first by judges, then by statutes. IBM is not a person, it is a thing. Unlike cats and dogs, which are also not people, IBM does not have a gender or a sex.
Although it does not address this particular topic, you might want to refer to Strunk's The Elements of Style.
__________
You couldn't give them away around here. -- Kurt Heasley
I think the point he was trying to make was that under US law a corporation is considered to be equal to an individual for legal purposes even though a corporation isn't actually a person.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
Your example ("IBM has ...; they have ...") is gramatically incorrect in America and any other English-speaking country.
t tp://www-1.ibm.com/services/innovation/abercromb ie.shtml
...are fictitious entities
Grammar is determined by usage. I tried has/have (well, more or less) on IRC, and asked if anybody wanted to complain; nobody did. Certainly, if you google around, you will find lots of people mixi
ng the singular and plural that way, even columnists. (random examples:
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/16270.html
http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/10/0110ibm.html
h
-- search for "they have". Unfortunately, I can't find a Safire example).
Wait, I'm an idiot. They is grammatically a plural but semantically a neuter singular! So, it's not inconsistent at all. And it just happens to work out to the same text in British English, but without the nonstandard semantics on "they". Neat!
Although it does not address this particular topic, you might want to refer to A Person Paper On Purity In Language.
In addition, it is untrue that "companies are people in America."
In a legal sense, it is quite true -- see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. for details.
Corporations are far from fictitious -- they're as real as political parties, house parties, or dirt. Should corporations exist? In their current form? With their current rights and privileges? Off-topic in the extreme. But corporations are as real as you or I, if not as human.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Nuts, you beat me to it. I was reading responses to see if anyone else got it... and I guess you did :-)
--Matthew