Slashdot Mirror


The Linux Incompatibility List

Jonathan Lassoff writes "The Linux Incompatibility list is a wiki project that attempts to document hardware that is incompatible with Linux rather than list what is compatible. In the wiki, it is possible to add alternitives so as to push hardware manufacturers to make good binary drivers, publish specifications, or even better, publish open drivers."

422 comments

  1. Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    0 comments and it's already /.'d into the ground.

    1. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by ravenlock · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps they just shut down their database to save us the trouble? :)

    2. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by chimpo13 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's because the server is IIS. Someone glanced sideways at it and down it went.

    3. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by Iron+Clad+Burrito · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean WINE won't run IIS?

    4. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by BoldAC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In college I maintained the "Moan and Groan List" of hardware and software incompatibilities.

      Old newsgroup posting...

      That was around 10 years ago when HP, Packard Bell, iomega, and several other companies were learning that they could release cheap, buggy hardware and make an assload of money.

      I got tons of traffic and was in several "best of" lists over the next couple of years. Several companies were trying to sue me but luckily several of my faithful users were lawyers and helped me through it.

      Uptime was a problem because we had no way at that time of making money on the project. We bounced from server to server trying to keep up with traffic. I understand how these guys feel.

      After a couple of years, I went to med school and didn't have time to keep it up. I'm such a shmuck... If I would have focused on that page instead of my medical career, I could have made millions, gone bankrupt, and then made money again!

      AC

    5. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by StarsEnd · · Score: 1

      Out of memory - nice!

    6. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... which makes you wonder why they didn't just put up a few pages on Wikipedia for this. The infrastructure is already there and as long as they're not doing any really custom wiki coding (and it's not outside of Wikipedia's intended scope), they might as well let someone else do the hosting who has everything in place.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by sparkywonderchicken · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe it's really a modded Xbox and they decided to play Halo instead.

    8. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      and it's not outside of Wikipedia's intended scope
      I think you've already figured it out... ...although maybe you could stretch wikibooks; it's not a textbook but it could be construed as a reference book, sort of.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by robslimo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree that they should have done it on Wikipedia... therefore, I started it (link from Usability section of the Linux topic to a new topic Linux Incompatibility)

      The list is empty since I couldn't get to the original server. So, as time permits...

    10. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they just have a little more class than to dump a potentially large bandwidth load onto wikipidia.

      Once upon a time, people on the 'net weren't a bunch of assholes, and would politely inquire before knowingly burdening your machines with a ton of bandwidth. (*cough* slashdot)

      Or maybe, the info might be a little dynamic for wikipedia to handle effectively, I dunno.

      This list could change daily, or even hourly.

      "GooberTech PCI Master Xtreme is incompatible"
      No wait
      "GooberTech PCI Master Xtreme is supported with kernel patch 3432-231"
      no wait
      "GooberTech PCI Master Xtreme is unsupported again" (patch withdrawn because of patent infringment)
      no wait
      "GooberTech PCI Master Xtreme is supported from rev 2.6 and up, excluding rev 3.4"
      etc, etc..

      This list is a good idea though. I hope they're smart and put a good "cellphone/PDA" compatible interface on it. This is the type of search I'd like to do while standing in the checkout line of CompUSA.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    11. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by DavidNWelton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ha ha...

      It's not IIS, it is of course, Apache with Rivet. We were in the middle of some work on the server, and as I commented elsewhere, I *just* created this and am still tweaking the software. It's still at the stage where I'm doing research for hardware to put in myself in order to make it a useful resource.

      Neither the list, nor the server, nor anything else was ready to be published on slashdot, or anywhere else high-traffic for that matter. I guess I shouldn't have linked it on kerneltrap, but it was handling the traffic there no problem.

      In any case, you can read more about the idea, and some other people's comments on it at here, which also has a link to the thread on the kernel mailing list:

      http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3695

    12. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by valkraider · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rule #1: If you are going to set up a website with ANYTHING cool, drop all /. referrels, or at a minimum send a "low bandwidth" version to people coming from /.

      Rule #2: make sure Google gets a hold of your site, then just use the Google cache. ;)

    13. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time, people on the 'net weren't a bunch of assholes, and would politely inquire before knowingly burdening your machines with a ton of bandwidth.

      And when was this, perchance? Since it's been happening since at least 1988, I'm guessing it's before you'd even *heard* of the internet.

    14. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, there goes a new entry for the Slashdot Incompatability List Wiki...

    15. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by xgamer04 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, what a great idea!

      Except for the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tech support forum...

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    16. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by uberdave · · Score: 1

      They should put that on the incompatibility list then.

    17. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tech support forum...

      And what is an encyclopedia but a collection of facts? This isn't a "post your question and we'll help you out" forum, it's documenting whether a piece of hardware works with Linux or not. It might be stretching the bounds of what Wikipedia is for, but it's really up to the site maintainers to say if such a topic is appropriate.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    18. Re:Wow, looks like they'll need new hardware by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Why would you want it too?

  2. Difficult to maintain? by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is going to be difficult to maintain. The numbers of unsupported hardware are huge. I just tried to add my digital camera (Kodak DX4530) but kept receiving an error that someone else was making a change at the same time.

    As new devices are usually intended for a Windows audience I really doubt that this will do anything but tell people something they already know...

    1. Re:Difficult to maintain? by ccharles · · Score: 2

      Yes, but hopefully the list will grow at an ever-decreasing rate. I have been using Linux almost exclusively for about three years and I know that I've had fewer problems with hardware as time has gone on.

    2. Re:Difficult to maintain? by mikeyrb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But I would call it a step forward. I would like to see integration of sites listing working drivers and a site like this, where we see what doesn't work. If you're out to purchase something new, you don't know if someone's tried it yet because sometimes you just can't find it listed. It'd be nice to see just one page, yes this works, or no this doesn't. Even better, you could then look at the whole list and pick one that works. Or in the nature of the new site, see one that works for one platform and hope for the best that it will work for yours soon. Oh, and after the /. effect dies out, the site should probably maintain well.

    3. Re:Difficult to maintain? by pvcf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But this is brilliant...

      Put up a nearly empty site, make it publicly editable, advertise on /. and *poof*...

      Hordes of slavering technophiles come and fill up your site. Assuming it stays up long enough under the onslaught that is...

      --
      F U NE X N M? Son: "Dad... How do you spell 'hourly'?" Dad: "0 * * * *"
    4. Re:Difficult to maintain? by DavidNWelton · · Score: 2, Funny

      I didn't advertise it on slashdot... actually, I would have preferred that it didn't go near slashdot for a while untill it was good and ready. Bleagh.

    5. Re:Difficult to maintain? by pvcf · · Score: 1

      Despite my rather flippant and less than successful attempt at humour, I do believe your site is a good idea.

      My sympathies with regard to the unfortunate and pre-mature exposure.

      Good luck! ;-)

      --
      F U NE X N M? Son: "Dad... How do you spell 'hourly'?" Dad: "0 * * * *"
    6. Re:Difficult to maintain? by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just tried to add my digital camera (Kodak DX4530)

      I went to check out a camera that my father-in-law was buying. Took my Linux laptop with me (Mandrake 10), plugged in the camera and a few seconds later a harddrive icon appeared in KDE. Opened it and a few folders/directories deep I found the thumbnails of all the photos. Clicked on one and it came up full size.

      As new devices are usually intended for a Windows audience I really doubt that this will do anything but tell people something they already know...

      The above experience told me that there are two types of hardware manufacturers. Those that use standard interfaces (eg USB mass storage) and those who invent their own (and only release windows drivers). This wiki will be a useful reference, and might encourage manufacturers to just use a standard that's already there.
      Meanwhile, I will always take the laptop when checking out peripherals.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    7. Re:Difficult to maintain? by spidereyes · · Score: 5, Funny

      Drum roll please --

      Also missing from the list: Women.

      --

      I say we just grow up, be adults and die.
    8. Re:Difficult to maintain? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Yeah, 'ware the Mongol Hordes :D

      I think this is a great idea. Here's to hoping it gets populated pretty quick, because it's certainly a resource I could use. I don't have anything to add to the list at this point, all my hardware either works or has been forced to :) but I've bookmarked it right next to my "working" bookmarks; I'm sure I'll run into something sooner or later given my propensity for being cheap :)

      Cheers and good luck sir!
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    9. Re:Difficult to maintain? by Benwick · · Score: 2, Funny

      In fairness to the ladies (for whom I am not the best spokesmodel, being male), there should be a -1 Sexist moderator option... Who brings me dinner when I've been coding for hours at home?? I'm not that easy to maintain myself!

      Or maybe around here it would be a +1 Sexist? Wink wink, nudge nudge...

    10. Re:Difficult to maintain? by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Trial by fire.

      Supported? I've seen claims of "supported" where the "support" was documentation to disable the feature. (Closed Source can be that bad;)

      Not Supported? Might work but you don't even get sympathy if it doesn't.

      One thing might help at least some of us. How the expletive-deleted do you tell what model of what it is that you've got in your hands?

      In any event, the best of luck to you. This could get very interesting.

    11. Re:Difficult to maintain? by 808140 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You know, if you ever actually talked to girls, you'd realize they find men rather difficult to "maintain" as well.

      So really all your post manages to do is insult women. They aren't computer equipment.

      Believe it or not, there are actually girls that read Slashdot, and this kind of thing is offensive. Please don't do it. And if you see it, don't mod it up.

      I know it sucks to be PC, but it wouldn't hurt to be sensitive to other people, just for once. If you practice, you might actually get laid someday.

    12. Re:Difficult to maintain? by knutal · · Score: 1

      The numbers of unsupported hardware are huge. I just tried to add my digital camera (Kodak DX4530) but kept receiving an error that someone else was making a change at the same time.


      The DX4530 is supported, I own one and use it a lot under linux. Works like a charm with KDE's "digikam" application...

    13. Re:Difficult to maintain? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      . I just tried to add my digital camera (Kodak DX4530)

      Why does anyone, even Windows/Mac users, plug a digitcal camera directly to a computer? Isn't it much more convenient to just stick the memory card into your reader? That's less wires trailing around, less fumbling with camera buttons, and no battery-drain as you peruse the photos...

    14. Re:Difficult to maintain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing might help at least some of us. How the expletive-deleted do you tell what model of what it is that you've got in your hands?

      Use lspci to get a complete list of the hardware on your system, including the PCI manufacturer and model codes as well as the PCI device revision number.

  3. Video cards by Brento · · Score: 5, Funny

    Make life easy - somebody just please copy the entire list of video cards from Epinions or Cnet.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:Video cards by oGMo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Make life easy - somebody just please copy the entire list of video cards from Epinions or Cnet.

      Funny? Maybe in 1992. Nowadays the only video cards that matter are nvidia or ATI, and the latter don't comprise "the entire list" on either site. NVidia has very good linux drivers; ATI has shoddy ones.

      So if you want to make it easy, just paste any hardware made by ATI and anything with "made for Windows" after it. (Even the latter list is shrinking slowly.)

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    2. Re:Video cards by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      Oh, dear me! Just note my fairly high UID and shrug off my relativistic aside.

      It's the content that matters after all.

      -Paul

    3. Re:Video cards by fitten · · Score: 0

      NVidia has very good linux drivers

      Ahhh... so that's why FC2 kept hanging to the point of power cycle... I'd hate to see what the ATi drivers do then....

    4. Re:Video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nowadays the only video cards that matter are nvidia or ATI

      Yah, maybe if you're a gamer or have new hardware. Even on new budget hardware, you won't be getting those kinds of cards. Linux is used quite a bit on older hardware or budget hardware.

    5. Re:Video cards by r_j_prahad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish you'd gone into detail on what makes ATI shoddy, because I'm running an ATI Radeon 9200 at home, and it literally blows the socks off the Nvidia card I had at work. My 9200's had no problems since day one. Install was a breeze, just dropped the card in the slot and powered up. I had to tweak XF86Config to get DRI, but that was hardly a problem. I guess I was just lucky that I had all the latest drivers and complete docs to work with.

    6. Re:Video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wish you'd gone into detail on what makes ATI shoddy

      Sure, Radeon 7200 (64MB DDR VIVO): No 3D acceleration. No tv input. No tv output. No drivers from ATI.

    7. Re:Video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be Fedora then, not nVidia.

    8. Re:Video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm running an ATI Radeon 9200 at home, and it literally blows the socks off the Nvidia card I had at work.

      Literally, you say? Maybe the Nvidia card was clocking itself down because the socks were impeding heat dissipation.

    9. Re:Video cards by fitten · · Score: 1

      Actually, when I disabled the graphical screen savers and told it to just blank the screen, I didn't have any more lockups.

    10. Re:Video cards by Karora · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, the 9200 is OK, but subsequently ATI have not released good drivers for 9500 and higher.

      I have a laptop with a 9700 in it, and the XFree86 or X.Org drivers are not 3D accelerated. The download from ATI doesn't work with ACPI suspend / resume in my laptop, which kind of sucks with a laptop. Until recently they also just kind of crashed randomly, etc, etc.

      At home I had an ATI 7500 in my wife's machine. I had endless problems with the binary drivers from ATI and eventually replaced it with an NVidia card which has been excellent, even if I do have to use binary drivers.

      While I dislike the fact that the drivers are binary, the likely fact is that both of these companies infringe each other's patents and copyrights to a large degree, and if they open-sourced their drivers they would end up with lawsuits forever, kind of in a deadly embrace.

      For this reason I don't expect to see binary drivers any time soon. Maybe a new company can come along, and produce decent video hardware, and open-source drivers, without infringing patents and copyrights. That would be great, but I won't hold my breath.

      --

      ...heellpppp! I've been captured by little green penguins!
    11. Re:Video cards by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't installed the nVidia drivers, huh ?

      open a console, type :

      yum search nvidia

      Then install the one who fits with your kernel version.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    12. Re:Video cards by Trejkaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if you want to make it easy, just paste any hardware made by ATI and anything with "made for Windows" after it.

      My last webcam said "Made for Windows" on it, even though it had an OV511 chipset, and thus worked on Linux pretty much perfectly. A lot better than my ATI graphics card works, anyway. :-)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    13. Re:Video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays the only video cards that matter are nvidia or ATI,

      My video driver is ne2k-pci, YIC!

    14. Re:Video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not a gamer your card will either be an onboard integrated job (Intel, SiS or Via), a cheap card (S3) or an old card (S3, Matrox, ATi Mach64, nVidia TNT)..all of which have damn fine X drivers and in many cases (Intel, S3, SiS, Via, Matrox) have manufacturer supplied or supported X drivers.

      If you're not a gamer, you're even better off!

    15. Re:Video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oGMo wrote: NVidia has very good linux drivers

      Only simple minded users can say binary drivers means a Linux support. Binary drivers are a plague that prevent a sane policy for hardware. They lock you, are usually bad, and are used as a pretext by the manufacturer to deny access to the hardware specs. ...And the simple-minded ones are buying said hardware without open specs, so that nothing can change...

      Now, please, explain me how do I am supposed to make it work correctly on my Linux/PowerPC machine.

      Regards.

    16. Re:Video cards by narsiman · · Score: 1

      I went to the redhat hcl. Surprisingly not a single card has been certified. Whatever happened to that Taiwanese chipset manufacturer !!

  4. no no no by machine+of+god · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not slashdotted, the link is just wrong.

    clicky

    1. Re:no no no by flosofl · · Score: 3, Funny

      and now this link is salshdotted... Well done! :)

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    2. Re:no no no by machine+of+god · · Score: 0

      oh noes.

    3. Re:no no no by McLoud · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, thanks to you, it is.

      --
      sign(c14n(envelop(this)), x509)
    4. Re:no no no by sharkey · · Score: 1
      and now this link is salshdotted

      It's also been slashdotted.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    5. Re:no no no by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1

      we wish it to be known that those responsible for slashdotting this site are now slashdotted. the rest of the comments are done at the last minute in a completely differnt style. thankyou.

  5. Incompatibility #1 by bherman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Their hardware and Frontpage Slashdot article. Looks like it's time for some new stuff!

    --
    Error: Sig not found.
  6. List of Hardware with Linux Problems by manual_overide · · Score: 4, Funny

    Device: *
    Vendor: *

    That was easy... :p

    --
    If bad puns were like deli meat, this would be the wurst
    1. Re:List of Hardware with Linux Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least vendors are honest with Linux as Linux code is more likely to complain - unlike MS Windows which just (hopefully) slowly corrupts until it crashes. MS Windows crashes for bad drivers... Linux will core the thing or disable it.

      And of course as with wireless 54g, there must be some conspiricay going on. Development kits have Linux in them but you can't get Linux drivers. The vendors are being pressured my Microsoft to omit Linux support to get their drivers into Microsoft products and updates.

      Sad to say we live in a racist computing world. My solution is simple, I will not buy it if it does not support Linux, even if it is for a Windows PC as I know someday I will run Linux and not windows with it.

    2. Re:List of Hardware with Linux Problems by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I will not buy it if it does not support Linux, even if it is for a Windows PC as I know someday I will run Linux and not windows with it.

      By which time someoen most likely reverse engineered the thing and made a linux driver anyway..

  7. *raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so as to push hardware manufacturers to make good binary drivers

    Question? When did Linux start allowing binary drivers that were not kernel specific? Last time I checked, Linus has jury-rigged the kernel to only allow drivers compiled against a specific version of the kernel. This was in order to force hardware manufacturers to release the source code.

    Personally, I think Linux should allow binary drivers. Most hardware is useless in a few years anyway, so what good is having the source? Compare that to the OS, where it can live on for decades.

    1. Re:*raises hand* by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      How about because most hardware is based off of older hardware? Every new Nvidia card that comes out, when it's time to start writing drivers, Nvidia doesn't through out the old code and start writing new.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:*raises hand* by salimma · · Score: 4, Informative

      You *can* have good binary drivers. It's the interface between the binary drivers and the kernel that is normally provided in source form, and that needs to be recompiled against the target kernel.

      Ask nVidia, VMware, and.. what's that modem with binary Linux drivers, can't remember.

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    3. Re:*raises hand* by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most hardware is useless in a few years anyway...

      Not always. I have some perfectly good parallel port midi hardware that no longer works in WinXP or Linux. It's precisely because nobody's written drivers that I can't use it. It's not like the MIDI spec has changed any.

    4. Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that the nVidia driver is source for the kernel module, the binary is just for the XFree server.

    5. Re:*raises hand* by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was in order to force hardware manufacturers to release the source code.

      Not at all. This is to prevent people from running old modules against a new kernel version, where symbol names and other internals may have changed, thus resulting in potential crashses, instabilities, etc. As I understand it, you can turn this off by disabling kernel module versioning, but the module itself may refuse to load if it detects the wrong kernel version.

      Fortunately, there's a really easy way around this that nVidia and other folks use. nVidia distributes their drivers as a binary driver, along with some source which acts as a thin layer between the binary code and the kernel itself. This layer is then compiled for the specific kernel version, while the binary driver portion remains the same. This is, incidentally, how I install the driver (since they have no modules for my specific kernel version).

      Most hardware is useless in a few years anyway,

      Holy crap, HIBT? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a *long* time. Hardware is *far* from useless, even long after it's been "obsoleted". It's only the silly gamerz that require the latest and greatest... most people get by with fairly modest equipment. Heck, my firewall ran on a 486 DX/100... that is, until the power supply died. *sigh*

    6. Re:*raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is true for graphics cards. Which you *don't* have the source for. On the other hand, you *do* have the source for a wide variety of network cards. All of which does very little good. Manufacturers of these cards revamp the interfaces every few years to meet the new standards in throughput and features. Drats, foiled again!

    7. Re:*raises hand* by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. If the manufacturer has some secret technology that makes my scanner better than the competition and will only release a binary driver, then I'll gladly install it to use it. Take NVIDIA for example, they don't release the source code, but the installer "compiles" a kernel module so the user can take advantage of the 3d acceleration that they bought.

      I'd rather see hardware supported by closed source drivers than getting stuck with a $200 paperweight because I bought a camera, and THEN switched to linux.

      Binary drivers used to cause a lot of problems with windows. But Microsoft and the manufacturers got better and hence no more BSODs (despite the bad jokes that still exist here).

      Since the kernel is open, I think it could be easier for manufacturers to develop drivers as opposed to writing them for windows.

    8. Re:*raises hand* by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1
      You raise a very good point about the hardware being obsolete.

      To compromize, I'd like to suggest that, yes, they can release binary only drivers, BUT the manufacturer cannot restrict reverse engineering.

      Just a suggestion to get some ideas flowing. It kills me that some hardware isn't being supported because of manufacturers reluctance to release source.

    9. Re:*raises hand* by oudzeeman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree on binary drivers. I'm all for open source software, but if a company wants to release binary-only drivers for its products, then my attitude is "well at least they support the product under linux". Trying to 'force' hardware companies into releasing source isn't going to work (especially highend hardware like video cards). Source for drivers does have some educational value, but most people would just like native support for their video cards or whatever in linux.

    10. Re:*raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not at all. This is to prevent people from running old modules against a new kernel version, where symbol names and other internals may have changed, thus resulting in potential crashses, instabilities, etc. As I understand it, you can turn this off by disabling kernel module versioning, but the module itself may refuse to load if it detects the wrong kernel version.

      I haven't heard this, but I believe you. It's still an unnecessary restriction. Every other OS is careful to build in a driver interface that is independent of the OS version. Only Linux seems to force things right down to the level of kernel options.

      Now if we had to switch drivers between major releases of the Linux kernel (e.g. 2.2 to 2.4), then there'd be no real issue.

      Hardware is *far* from useless, even long after it's been "obsoleted". It's only the silly gamerz that require the latest and greatest... most people get by with fairly modest equipment.

      It's not a matter of the hardware still being used. Usually you have old copies of software to go with it, too. The real issue is that hardware is a moving target. Chasing around new hardware items to create drivers for, is an exercise in futility. By the time you create the drivers, the hardware has already been replaced with the new model. This means that you HAVE to run old hardware to stay 100% compatible with Linux.

      Why bother, when you can get the driver from the manufacturer? The driver can be used for as long as both the hardware is manufactured and Linux doesn't change its driver versions. Once the hardware is no longer supported by the manufacturer and Linux, you can continue running with the older copies of the OS software until an upgrade. That should give you AT LEAST five years before you can't upgrade your core OS.

    11. Re:*raises hand* by PitaBred · · Score: 0

      First off, it's jerry-rigged, not jury-rigged. There are places that will say that jerry-rigged is incorrect or a secondary form of jury-rigged, but they're wrong. A slang word for Germans used to be "jerries", and hence, something that was shoddily done was "jerry-rigged". Jury-rigged has no real etymological meaning.
      Anyway, he hasn't ever really had a choice. Some companies like NVidia compile a kernel interface for a specific kernel, but use the same object code for their drivers, and don't release their source.
      And yes, I concur. Hardware manufacturers are more in the dark ages than many software companies as far as open specs. The hardware interface aren't your crown jewels hardware guys... you can infer a certain amount from it, but not everything. Please, just release specs... we just want to make it work.

    12. Re:*raises hand* by david.given · · Score: 2, Informative
      When did Linux start allowing binary drivers that were not kernel specific?

      I'm posting this using a desktop machine running Linux that's talking to a server running Linux via two wireless ethernet cards using Windows drivers.

      Check out ndiswrapper. It's a surprisingly elegant system for letting you use WLAN drivers written to the NDIS standard (e.g., Windows network drivers) under Linux.

      It's wonderful. It's simple and highly effective. It lets you use drivers written by people with access to actual technical documentation, it's small, it's adequately fast, it's easy to manage... it also lets me use my two network cards under Linux, which I can't do otherwise. (One's a RTL8180, which is unsupported under Linux, and the other's a ACX100, for which a driver does exist but which sucks.)

      Didn't NDIS start out as a portable driver standard, anyway? Netware, OS/2 and Windows, wasn't it? What would be really elegant is to use some sort of code translation to allow the drivers to be used on non-ix86 machines...

    13. Re:*raises hand* by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Because we know Windows has never had issues with low quality binary drivers crashing the entire OS..

    14. Re:*raises hand* by Charvak · · Score: 1

      OT.
      I read The End of Eternity waaaaaaaaay back. why then you call it as a lost masterpiece ?
      just wondering.

    15. Re:*raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      First off, it's jerry-rigged, not jury-rigged.

      Try again. Besides, it's in common usage, so it's as good as part of the language.

      Hardware manufacturers are more in the dark ages than many software companies as far as open specs. The hardware interface aren't your crown jewels hardware guys... you can infer a certain amount from it, but not everything. Please, just release specs... we just want to make it work.

      You don't understand. Most modern hardware relies heavily on features provided in SOFTWARE. For example, a digital camera can handle video, still shots, zooming, brightness adjusting, etc. because the SOFTWARE knows how to do it. The hardware only provides simple access to a sensor. With this currently being the case, the specs of the hardware tend to be useless. (Unless you want to write all of the replacement functionality yourself.)

      This leads into the problem that many hardware manufacturers purchase software components to shorten their development time. Since they don't own this software, they have no right to release its source. (Which they may not even have!) Thus it is more important than ever to provide proper support for binary drivers.

    16. Re:*raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      It's been out of print for a long time. They recently began printing it again. Thus, "lost masterpiece". :-)

      Don't worry, you're the third person to ask that. Besides, it's good for the average Slashdotter to know that Asimov wrote something OTHER than the robot series.

    17. Re:*raises hand* by Yaztromo · · Score: 1
      Heck, my firewall ran on a 486 DX/100... that is, until the power supply died.

      My mail server is still running off a Pentium 133 with 32MB of RAM.

      These old systems are wonderful with Linux. Sure you may not want to use them as desktop systems -- but if you've got 'em, why not use them to offload some of the tasks you normally run on your desktop?

      Yaz.

    18. Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Jury" was a type of mast. Masts have rigging. Some guy named "Jerry" doesn't. He *built* things. Thus "jerry-built". Get it right, will you?

    19. Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fortunately, there's a really easy way around this that nVidia and other folks use. nVidia distributes their drivers as a binary driver, along with some source which acts as a thin layer between the binary code and the kernel itself. This layer is then compiled for the specific kernel version, while the binary driver portion remains the same. This is, incidentally, how I install the driver (since they have no modules for my specific kernel version).
      to nVidia add VMWare which does exactly the same... but what I would like to see on Linux is this kind of stuff (precompiled binary drivers that need to be linked) wrapped into some standard infrastructure. then nVidia or VMWare could only distribute some generic source RPM and the system (distribution) itself will handle dependencies (as f.e. kernel sources and compiler to be present) and also recompile modules when needed - when new kernel package is installed (along with source which is a little no good cause off download sizes) modules will automagically get recompiled upon boot (as sysVinit service or whatever the distribution use, just make a standard for hardware vendors and treat things internally as needed)... I use something like that in my office (running few Fedora Core 2 workstations) it is DKMS and works fine - no need to manualy setup modules, new kernel gets in, new modules get in on boot time - transparent to users. but I needed to tweak a little myself... but after all it works great.

      for mor info check:
      http://linux.dell.com/dkms/
      http://fedoranews.org/tchung/dkms/
      http://dag.wieers.com/packages/dkms/

    20. Re:*raises hand* by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Personally, I think Linux should allow binary drivers. Most hardware is useless in a few years anyway, so what good is having the source? Compare that to the OS, where it can live on for decades.
      Linux still runs on hardware which is older than Linux. There is nothing inherent in the hardware which causes it to be "useless" after a few years. It is only useless when it is impossible for the individual user to support its use, and this typically happens when the manufacturer loses interest in your platform or when the new (and sometimes improved) generation of hardware shows up.

      Unfortunately, the new generations of hardware are not always improved from the end user's standpoint. Modems, network devices, low-end sound, and keyboards are a few examples where manufacturers cripple newer products in order to sell for a lower price and gain volume.

      A common tactic is to move hardware functionality into software to save engineering costs and material costs. Frequently, this inconveniences the user even while the product is being supported by the manufacturer (I don't know of anyone who hasn't complained about a Winmodem at some point or another), but thanks to trade secrets and braindead software copyright law, as soon as the manufacturer disappears, the hardware that the user paid money for becomes useless. Not because it's obsolete, or defective, or incapable of performing to specification. It's because the manufacturer didn't care enough to give others the necessary tools to fill in for them, once they decided supporting their products (or staying in business at all) was too expensive for them.

      That's not really a fair bargain for individual users who don't throw their single PC away and buy a new one every three years, which is why we would like to discourage the practice of maintaining binary-only drivers in favor of open-source ones. Having to change hardware because the manufacturer's business plans changed *after the date of purchase* is not something that leaves a good taste in my mouth.

      You're welcome to disagree, but the vast majority of kernel hackers are taking the opposite position, and they're the ones writing the code.

      Regarding software copyrights, I think software authors should be entitled to copyright on their binary code only if they place the corresponding source code in escrow with the Library of Congress. That way, when the company dissolves or the copyright expires (heh), the public actually gets something useful in return, as opposed to rights to an indeterminate binary blob with piles of unfixed bugs and design issues that has to run in a legacy emulation environment or on suboptimal hardware.

    21. Re:*raises hand* by sigaar · · Score: 1

      No more BSODs? On which planet do you live? True, Windows 2000 and XP features the Blue Screen Of Death a lot less often than earlier versions, but that's more a result of them being based on NT, than any new advances. To be honest, I've used NT 4 for a lot longer than 2000 and XP combined, and I've seen fewer BSODs in NT than in 2k and XP. But that's not the point. BSODs are still with us. I got one today on a relatively new HP nx9010 notebook, with nothing much installed on it aside from the software that came with it and MS Office. Windows XP Pro on a supposedly good quality notebook. According to the owner, it happens every couple of days when he switches it on. Then he has to unplug the mains, and unplug the battery, since you can't switch it off. Yeah, Blue Screens Of Death are still with us.

      --
      sigaar
    22. Re:*raises hand* by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most hardware is useless in a few years anyway, so what good is having the source? Compare that to the OS, where it can live on for decades.

      The exact opposite is true. The hardware is going to live on for a very long time, while the kernel is going to change rather quickly.

      Let's say you buy a SnafuCard.v2 today in August 2004. In five years which do you think will be more likely: the SnafuCard.v2 driver for Linux 3.2 will be available on the Snafu website even though they have not sold that card in four years; or; Linux 3.2 will have a source based driver for the SnafuCard.v2 that has been continuously updated along with the kernel? While the later isn't guaranteed, I think it's much more likely than the former.

      The hardware is hardware. It's a material item whose characteristics will not change unless it corrodes or you break it. But the kernel is an ever changing dynamic collection of software. It WILL change. Unless you plan to be running Linux 2.6 five years from now, you had better not rely on today's binary-only driver.

      p.s. There are reasons for Linux to allow binary drivers, but hardware obsolescence is not one of them.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    23. Re:*raises hand* by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Also read tEoE many years ago. And its horrible the way he tried to join the Robot series, Foundation Series, and tEoE all together in "Foundation's Edge" and "Foundation and Earth".

      What is this obsession that many authors have with trying to put all their disparate universes together?

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    24. Re:*raises hand* by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "This is the dumbest thing I've read in a *long* time. Hardware is *far* from useless, even long after it's been "obsoleted". It's only the silly gamerz that require the latest and greatest... most people get by with fairly modest equipment. Heck, my firewall ran on a 486 DX/100"

      And if you run debian woody (stable) you have to use old hardware!

      :-P

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    25. Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't heard this, but I believe you. It's still an unnecessary restriction. Every other OS is careful to build in a driver interface that is independent of the OS version. Only Linux seems to force things right down to the level of kernel options.

      You're looking at it wrong. It's not a restriction from the kernel developers' point of view. They don't have to maintain yet another backwards compatible layer in the kernel this way. Linus' view is clearly, "if a binary module works, fine, but if it doesn't, too bad, use hardware with an open driver".

      Now sure, from an end-user's point of view, you might think it's a restriction. But really, whether you like it or not, a large part of Linux is the idea of free source, and the fact that Linux is gaining in popularity won't change that no matter how much people whine.

    26. Re:*raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Well, here's one book I guarantee he didn't tie into his Foundation/Empire/Robot series. ;-)

    27. Re:*raises hand* by jburroug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Damn skippy - I still have the internals from every system I've built, all still running and doing useful things on the home network. My firewall is a old (now caseless) Celeron 300a (no longer overclocked since it's not a desktop) system with some surplus 3COM cards in it, I have my old Pentium MMX 200mhz system (again caseless) hooked to my stereo as a networked MP3 player, my file and general purpose server is an old K62 seutp, and I'm currently finalizing the setup on an old PIII/Pro 500mhz system someone gave me for use as a "media station" I'm going to use as a dedicated machine for ripping/burning CD's and talking to my digital camera.

      With forwarded X sessions I can run all these apps as though they were local to my desktop or laptop at once without using up valuable system resources better left to interactive processes. Old hardware rocks, I can't get enough of it :)

      --
      "Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
    28. Re:*raises hand* by hooqqa · · Score: 0

      thus resulting in potential crashses, instabilities, etc. As I understand it, you can turn this off by disabling kernel module versioning, but the module itself may refuse to load if it detects the wrong kernel version. Fortunately, there's a really easy way around this that nVidia and other folks use. nVidia distributes their drivers as a binary driver, along with some source which acts as a thin layer between the binary code and the kernel itself. This layer is then compiled for the specific kernel version, while the binary driver portion remains the same. This is, incidentally, how I install the driver (since they have no modules for my specific kernel version).
      Is the thin layer just tricking the driver into working, but opening you up to 'crashes, instabilities' the further away from the base kernelversion the binaries were intended for becomes. Or, will the drivers remain stable from 2.4.0 - 2.4.27 ?

    29. Re:*raises hand* by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      I run Linux on some early/mid 90s SGI hardware, and that stuff is retty usefull, and even to modern standards far from slow (wouldn't call it fast anymore)

      A $400 PC from 5+ years ago might not be that usefull, but my dual pII machine from 5 years ago now has pIII cpus, and can run for another couple of years easily before performance might become an issue with some of the software that it runs (mostly web server, mail server etc). Yeah, that machine costed a bit more also.

      On another note.. I bet those nice IBM mainframes that run Linux get replaced every 5 years as well..

      The notion that 5 years old hardware is outdated is simply silly. At best it is true for some specific desktop use, and mostly gaming.

    30. Re:*raises hand* by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Every other OS is careful to build in a driver interface that is independent of the OS version.

      You really think so? If I have a piece of hardware with Win98 drivers and I can get it to work under Win95, I'd attribute that to serendipity, not design.

      And if that same driver works under WinME as well, I'll consider it a miracle.

    31. Re:*raises hand* by VelocityBoy09 · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, HIBT?

      Okay... HIBT... According to http://www.acronymfinder.com/, that's either "Have I Been Trolled" or "Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament". Little help?

    32. Re:*raises hand* by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Didn't NDIS start out as a portable driver standard, anyway? Netware, OS/2 and Windows, wasn't it? What would be really elegant is to use some sort of code translation to allow the drivers to be used on non-ix86 machines...

      NDIS started out as a specification for a multi protocol stack, ie, it would allow you to bind netbeui, tcp/ip and appn protocols to the same network interface.

      Windows and OS/2 both use NDIS stacks but did not use the same implementation, so drivers were not exchangable between the 2. Maybe they are now, haven't looked at OS/2 in almost half a decade.

    33. Re:*raises hand* by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The former. Wait... HIBT??? ;)

    34. Re:*raises hand* by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      I see these comments that don't make any sense to me like, "If the manufacturer goes out of business, your hardware becomes useless." Huh? I still have a driver for it, and the hardware still works, so why do you seem to think one or the other is going to self destruct when the company goes under? And if you have a driver, why would it not work with later versions of the OS? I see that as more of a problem with an OS when the new version will immediately not work with an older driver, and all the older drivers have to be rewritten to work with the newer version of OS.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    35. Re:*raises hand* by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Well, lets take a real world example.

      if we replace SnafuCard.v2 with for example nVidia's RIVA TNT or TNT2, then we actually find that those are supported by the manufacteror with their Linux drivers.

      THey also have a (recently updated) FreeBSD driver btw.

      I do have the impression that once they got the framework in place, releasing those drivers is very little efford for them and it does a nice thing for their reputation.

      Of course this doesn't prove much beyond that it might be a good idea to look at each individual case and not draw generalized conclusions.

    36. Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most hardware is useless in a few years anyway, so what good is having the source?"

      Surely most hardware is useless in a few years because the drivers aren't open-source. Hands up everyone who's still got 3.1" driver disks with "For Windows 3.11" written on them?

    37. Re:*raises hand* by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      No what would be really elegant is if there was an NDIS interface written into the linux kernel so you could nativly load NDIS drivers in linux.

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    38. Re:*raises hand* by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Every other OS on the planet doesn't change its kernel or kernel interfaces every 5 minutes. They're still shuffling stuff around in 2.6 FFS and 2.6 is supposed to be the stable rev. And no, I'm not complaining. I like it that way!

      My room mate had two pieces of hardware with Win98 drivers which are not compatable with Windows XP. Neither manufacturer appears to have XP drivers available (Or they went out of business) so my room mate has to replace hardware. So much for careful driver interface design.

      I have an ATI PCI Express card in my system at home. Unfortunately I can not run 3D apps with it because neither ATI nor the Xfree guys support PCI express with ATI cards. So much for getting a driver from the manufacturer. You still have to be picky about the hardware you use. I'll probably end up having to swap the card out for an Nvidia, since they don't seem to have any problems supporting the latest and greatest in Linux.

      Nothing ever forces you to change your kernel version, but you're kind of boned if you have two pieces of hardware which require you to run different versions of the kernel. That's not really an issue with open drivers.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    39. Re:*raises hand* by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We used to have a major problem in the OS/2 camp with OEM binary drivers causing TRAP000Ds. Of course, IBM got blamed for all those third party kernel traps, and OS/2 got a reputation for being unstable. Fact of the matter is, the OS/2 kernel was rock solid until you started adding third party drivers to it.

      I suspect that Microsoft fixed the problem by getting all those OEMs by the balls and telling them that they'd squeeze real hard unless the drivers were solid. Microsoft is pretty good at ball squeezing. Competing OSes can't just squeeze good drivers out of OEMs the way Microsoft can. They just don't make up a big enough demographic to be able to get a good solid grip on OEM balls.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    40. Re:*raises hand* by david.given · · Score: 3, Informative
      No what would be really elegant is if there was an NDIS interface written into the linux kernel so you could nativly load NDIS drivers in linux.

      Um, that's what ndiswrapper is. It currently builds as a module for ease of development but it would be trivial to compile it in to the kernel binary itself. It looks in a special directory for files describing the NDIS drivers, and if it finds the hardware, loads them and binds them. The end result is you end up with a bunch of standard ethernet devices. No userspace tools required anywhere, except for setting up the special directory in the first place...

      Yes, it really would be possible to have an option in your favourite distribution's installer saying 'Install network driver from floppy disk'.

    41. Re:*raises hand* by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Every other OS is careful to build in a driver interface that is independent of the OS version.

      So then Win9x drivers should work with win2k? Didn't think so. Rather, drivers are released for all the versions of MSWin, and the appropriate ones are installed.

    42. Re:*raises hand* by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Back in the '80s I saw a sticker which proclaimed:

      The meek shall inherit the shit.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    43. Re:*raises hand* by what+the+dumple+is · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see hardware supported by closed source drivers than getting stuck with a $200 paperweight because I bought a camera, and THEN switched to linux.

      SFW? I've seen plenty of people that had to ditch all sorts of hardware; from fancy high-end audio cards to scanners just to upgrade to Windows XP.

    44. Re:*raises hand* by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...why would it not work with later versions of the OS?

      That is where your argument completely falls apart. That binary is *NOT* going to work with different kernels. My friend has a Canon printer that will not work under WinXP desptite the fact that he has binary drivers for Win98. A coworker has a card that will not work with Linux 2.6 even though he has a binary driver for 2.4. I myself have experienced extreme difficulties using an binary video driver with FreeBSD for the same reasons.

      The source code will at least let you keep up with minor kernel interface variances, and easily port across major interface variances.

      Another drawback to binary drivers is that you have no fix if they start interfering with hardware you by later on. While there won't be tens of thousands of developers eager to fix the source based driver for you, there will still be scads more than that bankrupt hardware company will provide.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    45. Re:*raises hand* by dossen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the hardware stops working when you have to upgrade to an OS version that is not compatible with the old driver, obviously. And your claim that the old driver should keep working with newer OS versions makes some very broad assumptions: That the driver interface in the old OS is sufficiently well designed to keep it around (or that legacy drivers remain supported through some kind of wrapper), that there is no security/stability/whatever issues with the interface (would you like to keep a driver interface around if a root exploit was found in it?), and that the binary driver (which nobody can inspect) does not cheat and rely on some feature/bug/randomness not documented in the driver interface.
      Are there any major OSes out there where you can pick up a piece of unmaintained (by the vendor) hardware, without OS-vendor supplied drivers, and run it with a driver from a few versions back? I'm not thinking like Win2K -> WinXP, more like Win98 -> WinWP, or Mac OS 8/9 -> OS X? I really would like to know. And as I said, if the new version includes a driver, it doesn't count.
      And if we were aiming for such compatibility, it would at least require developers with access to the hardware, and a sufficient supply of machines and other hardware for testing, if you want it to mean anything. If the specs and/or drivers are open, those testers at least have the option of attacking problems from both the kernel and the driver, whereas they are left guessing if the driver is closed.

    46. Re:*raises hand* by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      In the case of the FreeBSD NVidia driver, I was shit out of luck for six months because NVidia was not updating their driver. It was a major pain in the ass because the old binary was crashing the kernel about once a day.

      NVidia argued that this was FreeBSD's fault for providing a moving 5.x target, and said they weren't going to update the driver until 5.x was marked stable. But the funny thing is that NONE of the open source XFree86/X.org DRI drivers had this problem.

      I'm not taking this anti-binary stance because I'm some sort of "freedom" ideologue, I'm taking this stance because I ran headlong into the "pragmatic" brick wall of closed source drivers.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    47. Re:*raises hand* by AJWM · · Score: 1

      How many CPU architectures does nVidia release binary drivers for? This may be less of an issue for AGP cards (hmm, AMD64?), but you'll find PCI cards in x86, PPC, MIPS and Sparc boxes.

      An open source Linux (or BSD) driver can be recompiled to support any of those (modulo some CPU-specific tweaking). I somehow doubt an x86 binary driver is as versatile.

      (The same can also be said for USB and FireWire devices, although that's a bit out of nVidia's domain.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    48. Re:*raises hand* by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      I still have mine, in storage. I also still have my OS/2 disks (humongous number of them shipped in the box) and OS/2 Warp disks AND CD kit.

      I still have vid cards (Spider Graphics) and controller cards (Promise), as well as 2-speed CD units, and an old one which had dedicated contrller/interface card. I still have my 486/DX2/66 box, I bought in 1993 with that nice but derided 14" near-flat screen KFC monitor. I haven't used it since maybe 1996 or so, when I bought a PowerSpec system from MicroCenter.

      It is (yep, I still have it) is the machine on which I first tried Linux, SuSE, back in mid-1999. I put McMillan/Mandrake 6.x from MicroCenter on it, and it's been Mandrake for me ever since, tho I did buy copies (boxed sets) of SuSE "just to give'em a try", but I wanted GUI tools, not haphazard guessing at my disks' drive geometry when mounting PCMCIA-based devices.

      If I wanted, as long as the hardware is still alive, I could go back to playing Falcon 2.0, US Navy Tomcat, and other games from 1993. But, I wouldn't try to play HL or Lonbow Apache on them. Longbow is what got me to upgrade to the 198 MHz PowerSpec Cyrix-based machine.

      Then, in 2000, I was so into HL and Longbow I needed to go up to an 800 MHz Gateway Select, which I duly fed Linux (SuSE, Mandrake, Caldera, etc...). Now, I just use my laptop more, since I don't have much space nor time to run all 8 of my computers...

      Anybody know any philanthropic types who'd help me set up a Linux training facility in Campbell, CA? It's time we get this ball rolling, before the economy supposedly turns back up and people forget the timeliness of the bubble bursting and the explosion of Linux. Saved money on that confluence, why not perpetually?

      david syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    49. Re:*raises hand* by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      I do know quite well what problems there were with 5.x, and have posted about them on here also.

      Basicly, as logn as you kept acpi out of the kernel, kept to the bsd42 scheduler and libc_r, the old driver worked as well as in 4.x

      Turn any of those on and your results can vary anywhere between very usable and crashing at the start of X.

      This was finally fixed with the new driver indeed.

      Would this be easier with an open source driver? definitely.

      The problem is all the 'locked up' ip that is being used in the graphics card hardware and drivers. Untill companies start dealing differently with that (which may take a change to the whole ip system for at least some of them) we either get an open source driver or such binary drivers.

      For most nvidia hardware, the Xfree/Xorg nv driver worked quite well as long as you didn't need 3d acceleration.

      I used it for soem time untill I had the time to bother with the old driver and 5.x again, but mostly for some 'office' work and watching video.

      Was kinda funny... about 2 weeks after I bothered to get the old driver to work, nvidia came with the new one.

    50. Re:*raises hand* by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > How many CPU architectures does nVidia release binary drivers for? This may be less of an issue for AGP cards (hmm, AMD64?), but you'll find PCI cards in x86, PPC, MIPS and Sparc boxes.

      heh, x86 only for what I know.

      > An open source Linux (or BSD) driver can be recompiled to support any of those (modulo some CPU-specific tweaking). I somehow doubt an x86 binary driver is as versatile.

      Yep, quite a good point.

      There are many more good arguments for open source drivers.

      In the days of Xfree 3.3.x it did help a lot to be able to build the mga driver and opengl/glx hacks for the specific x86 variation that you had.. it would still help nowadays I'd think.

      That doesn't change that the drivers as nvidia releases them should be usable to most people.

      For me it is more a practical choice.. I want a cheap but relatively powerfull system (hardware) and don't want to bother with Windows for the little gaming that I do every now and then (mostly some quake3 engine based games). With the nvidia hardware I do not get the best possible picture quality, nor do I get open source drivers.. but I do get a card that happens to do the job I want it to do very well for very little. (and hrm, it does the job a lot better then equivalent ati hardware with oss drivers performance wise)

      If I were to install a pci graphics card in some non x86 machine, I'd be on the lookout for whomever supports open source... but I'm a bit less likely to want fast opengl from it (exception maybe when running on a ppc mac)

    51. Re:*raises hand* by EddWo · · Score: 1

      I agree, it really put me off reading any more Asimov. He seemed to be saying "I'm so clever, look how I can fit all this together", when the psychohistory story of the last 5 books had never had anything whatsoever to do with robots. Just keep your universes seperate please.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    52. Re:*raises hand* by pkarlos_76 · · Score: 1

      Because most linux users don't replace their hardware every few years. They keep using it for 10+ years and even then they relegate it as a firewall box. :)

    53. Re:*raises hand* by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
      Remember that the nVidia driver is source for the kernel module, the binary is just for the XFree server.
      No.

      The bulk of the kernel module is from a file "nv-kernel.o" (~5MB), which is provided already compiled. The source files provided total <300kB. The finished kernel module is ~55kB (1%) larger than the provided (precompiled, binary only) core.

      Tim

    54. Re:*raises hand* by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      First off, it's jerry-rigged, not jury-rigged. There are places that will say that jerry-rigged is incorrect or a secondary form of jury-rigged, but they're wrong. A slang word for Germans used to be "jerries", and hence, something that was shoddily done was "jerry-rigged". Jury-rigged has no real etymological meaning.

      Firstly, you're wrong (although the grandparent's usage of "jury-rig" is not really correct).

      Secondly, your logic is a bit wacky. The Germans are renowned for their good, solid engineering, hardly something that would be associated with something that was "shoddily done".

    55. Re:*raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      *cough*Ahem*cough* And I quote from my original post:

      Now if we had to switch drivers between major releases of the Linux kernel (e.g. 2.2 to 2.4), then there'd be no real issue.

    56. Re:*raises hand* by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Every other OS is careful to build in a driver interface that is independent of the OS version

      What are you talking about? I a piece of hardware here (a very expensive midi keyboard) that only works with Win98, not Win98 Second Edition. It doesn't work with XP at all, locks the system up. This is a parallel port midi kbd, for which the specs haven't changed in ages.

      That's keeping the driver interface independent of the OS version? I think not.

      Sigh.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    57. Re:*raises hand* by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Amen!

      I just recently ordered some HP Vectra PII boxes off of Ebay dirt cheap, I'll be adding to my stack under the desk :) MP3 server hooked to the stereo, filled with HDDs, another running a private IRC server and ftp, haven't decided what to do with the other two yet :)

      Old hardware is really the way to go for home setups, stack it in the closet, cable it and open it to the internal NAT. For cheap. Yip!

      (halfway thru building a shelf-rack on rollers for hanging those boxes on, gonna hide them somewhere in the bedroom closet methinks, but for now they will be under the desk :) Gotta love those Vectras, small footprint and at $50/apiece including shipping was a great deal, and they are very reliable boxes.)

      Cheers!
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    58. Re:*raises hand* by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Part of Ballmer's job description methinks.

      *ducks*

      SB
      ( still chuckling at "OEM balls" :D Hmm, lots of good jokes there I'd wager )

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    59. Re:*raises hand* by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Actually, I did say that I wouldn't mind if Linux broke binary compatibility between major versions (i.e. 2.2 -> 2.4) However, it's obviously best if compatability is maintained.

      To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that Open Source drivers should go away. Many of them are very useful and should be preferred over any commercial driver. However, the number of devices for which Linux can never possibly keep up (scanners, cameras, MP3 players, NICs, 3D Accelerators, etc.) should be allowed to distribute binary drivers. That would make sure that you could at least get your hardware to work in the first place, rather than waiting a year or two for support.

    60. Re:*raises hand* by wrecked · · Score: 1

      My home LAN specs are almost identical to yours. A Celeron 366 is my firewall/file server, a Pentium III 500 MHz (generously donated gratis from a friend ) is a dedicated DVD ripper, a Duron 1.2GHz home office/entertainment workstation and K6-2 300MHz notebook with Netgear MA401 pcmcia wifi card (discarded from my dad; the LCD is wonky and needs to be held together by a bungee cord, but otherwise it works great; I'm posting this from it now)

    61. Re:*raises hand* by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      However, network cards, especially the new ones, are one of those critical pieces of hardware for which a lot of people are always RE'ing the drivers for. Remember that network cards, unlike the mostly home-use graphics cards, are in demand by those who run linux servers, and who have in-house support to write drivers and who understand the overall benefits of releasing the source.

      No, the major problem with source updating is in obscure hardware which is used by home users, and network cards are definitely not in that group.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    62. Re:*raises hand* by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh?

      I was saying that your statement that other OS's maintain driver compatibility between versions is simply not true, nothing about linux.

      But just to put my few cents in there, I recently bought a ultra-cheap Walmart webcam, which I thought would work with windows (was gonna use it as a laptop webcam for my winlaptop, turns out it barely works at all and causes frequent lockups); a couple hours investigation brought me to a few people who are in the process of writing linux drivers for this chipset, and they are near full-functionality at this point; so it ended up being connected to one of the linux laptops.

      This particular cheapie was introduced by a UK company just last fall. Hardly a "year or two". The company who makes the chipset is not exactly forthcoming on it's specs, either, like Not At All (bastards).

      Considering the amount of time it often takes companies to tweak their hardware drivers to full functionality in windows, it seems to me that you are underestimating the determination and resources of the OSS community.

      I'll grant that back in the late 90's and even the first couple years of this century, I'd have agreed with you (and did in fact in many ways as I struggled to make hardware work with linux); but all that is changing incredibly rapidly, and thank the many selfless devs out there for that!

      As for cameras, as a amateur photographer, if the camera manufacturers stay with the simple USB storage specs, they aren't a problem. I have a last-year model Fuji camera that required nothing more than plugging it in and figuring out which scsi device it showed up as then mounting it. There was nothing whatsoever on the web about it when I bought it. I'm currently tweaking a simple script that is easily launched to download the camera pix and open the viewer of one's choice.

      Scanners are problematical, I'll admit - I've heard a lot of bitching - but if they'd stick to the specs (which also makes the windows drivers more reliable) then it wouldn't be a problem. In any case there is a huge number of people out there willing to write SANE interfaces; and those scanners which don't work are often the ultra-cheapies which are junk anyway, meh.

      NICS, as I pointed out in another reply, are a minor problem, and I doubt that'll change.

      Here's one for ya; I even got my Radio Shack clearance sale Phoebe wireless setup ($50 for the NIC-AP and two USB WAPs) to work with Gentoo with nothing more than an hour or so's research and source compiling, and it's proven reliable. If I had time I'd write a simple python script for dealing with the setup. Someday maybe :D

      OT: You should have seen the look on the face of the manager of the local Shack when I stopped in the next morning and told him it was working - I don't think he believed me. :D ("That doesn't work with Linux and never will, I know, I run Redhat linux at home!" I'll treasure that moment for a long, long time, believe me. )

      The old view that "it doesn't work" is changing to "it'll work with some effort" - and if those who do the effort share the info, and someone else down the line writes simply setup scripts to use that work, well, maybe that'll wake some of these corporate asshats up, eh?

      No, AKA, things are changing, and changing rapidly. Sure, a lot of this stuff isn't for the average home JoeJill yet, but as the work gets done and the distros incorporate it, that'll keep changing, eh?

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    63. Re:*raises hand* by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      a relatively new HP nx9010 notebook

      Well, there's your problem right there, everyone knows the NX series are the experimental ones. You should have waited to get an NCC9010...

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    64. Re:*raises hand* by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      what's that modem with binary Linux drivers, can't remember.

      I think that modem was called the MadeByCapitalistPigs 3000.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    65. Re:*raises hand* by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      So basically what you're saying, is they are calling the kettle black until it gets shiny, but the pot is still black. :-)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    66. Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win98 drivers which are not compatable with Windows XP

      You sound ridiculous.

      He said that he has no problems if dirvers need to be changed between major version like 2.4 and 2.6.

      Windows XP does amazingly good job at running NT drivers.

      Solaris 9 (2.9) runs perfectly well all 64 bit drivers since 7 (2.7), five years ago. Probably longer.

      Kernel.org 2.6.7 is incompatible with everything else in the universe, including 2.6.6, 2.6.7-FC, etc.

      You occasionally have to change kernel minor version due to security bugs.

    67. Re:*raises hand* by Yaztromo · · Score: 1
      Old hardware rocks, I can't get enough of it :)

      You said it. If you actually want some more details on what I have on my network, the systems involved are:

      • A PIII-450 system with 384MB RAM running OS/2 WARP Server for e-business as my general workstation for running DOS, Java, OS/2, and X sessions,
      • A Celeron 550 box with 128MB RAM running RedHat 8. This acts as my network fileserver, DNS (I'm starting to build up too many systems to want to worry about coordinating the hosts files between them all), and automated nightly build system for jSyncManager Project, running in headless mode,
      • My 1.33Mhz PowerBook G4 laptop (which has been taking over most of the duties I used to use the OS/2 box for these last few months), networked wirelessly (everything else is wired),
      • The P-133 with 32MB RAM acting as my own personal mail server, running RedHat 8 (a brutal install to pare it down to fit on the 1GB drive in that system, and yet still be semi-useful. :P), also running headless,
      • An AMD K6-2 running at 450Mhz with 128MB RAM, an old CD-ROM drive, and absolutely NO hard drive, running Knoppix. I use this as a guest machine -- it has Mozilla and OpenOffice on it, so if a visitor wants to check their e-mail or surf the web or work on a document, they do it on this machine (as they can do whatever they want to it, and all I have to do to restore it is a reboot),
      • A PlayStation 2 with Sony Linux for the PlayStation 2 installed. With the kits 40GB of hard drive space, this acts as both my file server and my media server (I did the first official port of Ogg Vorbis to the PS2 on this system) -- being able to do 48Khz output via optical cable to my home theatre makes this a wonderful media box,
      • A SitePlayer Developers Kit. Not doing anything particularily useful, but I'm eventually going to get into the microcode and make this into a web-enabled controller for my homes X10 network,
      • An IBM WorkPad c505 (mostly for jSyncManager network sync development).

      I've had more systems, but that's what's currently running on my network. I've had a few people promise me some more systems -- I'm just trying to figure out what to do with them before accepting them (after all, have to put them to good use...;) ).

      Yaz.

    68. Re:*raises hand* by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Personally, I think Linux should allow binary drivers. Most hardware is useless in a few years anyway, so what good is having the source?

      Yes! And those binary drivers should be for PPC32 because that's what I use.

      What's that you say? You want the binary drivers to be for x86? Bingo. You understand the problem.

    69. Re:*raises hand* by Bruj0 · · Score: 1

      Old hardware rocks exept when you get the electricity bill. Which will be huge becouse old hardware normally uses more juice.

      --
      http://securityportal.com.ar
    70. Re:*raises hand* by PerspexAvenger · · Score: 1

      A big fat "me too" to that, brother.
      USB NIC was a case-in-point: Only had drivers for 2k and XP provided, neither of which were happy to install on my laptop with ME (don't worry, it's running Sarge now).

      As an aside, I was most impressed that a rescue disk dd-your-hdd-to-an-ftp-site Linux-based widget had drivers for the thing without me having to play silly buggers.

    71. Re:*raises hand* by doinky · · Score: 1

      95/98/ME drivers working across each is not serendipity - it's expected. The only real differences in the three were minor packaging changes - I've had plenty of drivers that worked on all 3 (including several I worked on). On the other hand, the next reply which complains that 2000/XP drivers don't work on ME is expected - no NT-class driver is going to work on a 9x-class OS. And the move from 2000 to XP in driver model was more of a change than any of the 9x changes.

    72. Re:*raises hand* by doinky · · Score: 1
      2000/XP drivers that don't work on ME is expected - no NT-class driver is going to work on a 9x-class OS. ME was the last version built on, essentially, the DOS kernel. XP, despite being pushed to consumers, is built on the NT kernel, as was 2000.

      So you're dealing with TWO OSs there, not just one. And in many cases, the driver DOES work across versions of the same OS.

    73. Re:*raises hand* by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      That is where your argument completely falls apart. That binary is *NOT* going to work with different kernels. My friend has a Canon printer that will not work under WinXP desptite the fact that he has binary drivers for Win98. A coworker has a card that will not work with Linux 2.6 even though he has a binary driver for 2.4.
      Not falling apart--that's my point exactly. I think that was pretty lame of XP and I think it's pretty lame of the Linux kernels too. I also had the same problem with an Apollo P-1200 printer I had that worked fine with its driver on Win98. That driver wouldn't work on XP, so I checked Apollo's website to get a new driver, and it just said, "No new driver needed--XP includes a driver for the P-1200 on the CD." Uh, yeah, XP detects it and automatically installs the driver, which doesn't work. It just puts out a few lines of garbage at the top of the page and then feeds the paper out--great driver ya got there. I did some Google searching and found that since Apollo is based on HP technology, you can just set it up as an HP Deskjet 500, and it works just fine.

      Anyway, it would seem to me that they could have a translation wrapper that wouldn't even have to be specific to the hardware. See what types of calls to Win98 the driver is trying to do and then "translate" those to the equivalent calls in XP and vice versa on the return side--no knowledge of the device needed. MS would just need to know the difference in the I/O interface between two of its own products. I understand that extra processing would introduce a little bit of in-line delay, so it probably wouldn't work very well for really fast, high end video cards that rely on speed a lot, but for printers? An extra second or two wouldn't make any difference.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    74. Re:*raises hand* by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      See what types of calls to Win98 the driver is trying to do and then "translate" those to the equivalent calls in XP and vice versa on the return side--no knowledge of the device needed.

      XP's problem was that users were migrating to a completely different operating system. DOS and NT/XP are as different as CPM and VMS. The only reason so many W98 drivers work in WXP is because Microsoft threw several abstraction layers between the kernel and the driver. Frankly, I think it's amazing that so many still work.

      But despite any abstraction layers that may exist, the kernel and drivers can still have bugs in them that won't show up until the next release. I develop an embedded system and routinely run across bugs that have lain hidden for years. The easiest way to uncover them is to move to a more recent version of the RTOS.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    75. Re:*raises hand* by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      OK, I had that in mind, about the change from DOS-based to NT-based systems as being a valid reason for the Windows driver incompatibility, but I didn't bring it up because I thought I would just get accused of being a fanboy making excuses. Since you brought it up then, that's a massive changeover that doesn't come along very often for Windows. Linux hasn't been making such a foundational change like that, so why can't they keep some compatibility between revs?

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  8. Re:/.ed already?? by varunop · · Score: 1, Funny

    i guess they need hardware compatible with /.ers

  9. Linux Incompatibility by hawley+Griffin · · Score: 2, Funny

    wow, a linux comminuty is incompatible with the servers hardware neat

  10. Slashdot compatibility by fmlug.org · · Score: 3, Funny

    Their servers dont look like there /. Compatible. I wonder if thats in their database?

    1. Re:Slashdot compatibility by pvcf · · Score: 1

      If not, you should add it in...

      --
      F U NE X N M? Son: "Dad... How do you spell 'hourly'?" Dad: "0 * * * *"
  11. yes yes yes by Haxwell · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is slashdotted, even if the link is wrong..

    --
    http://www.haxwell.org
  12. it does not serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If my hardware is not in the list, does not assure to me that that is compatible

    1. Re:it does not serve by Zooka · · Score: 1
      If my hardware is not in the list, does not assure to me that that is compatible
      Likewise, If your hardware is not in the Linux Compatibility List, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not compatible. Neither may be a definitive resourse, but they're both useful none-the-less.
  13. My idea by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had this idea the other day and I'm going to rehash it on this thread. Maybe it's redundant or overreaching, but I'll try and relate it in words anyway.

    A set of standards called "Desktop Linux". From a PHB and marketing viewpoint, it makes sense. Nothing to do with servers or embeded systems or that old 486 dhcp server sitting in someone's basement. It's just a concept that represents the computer that sits in people's homes and cubical.

    So the idea I'm kicking around is a set of standards. As far as the end user is concerned, the heart of this is a GUI interface similar to what distros include in their base install. The Mandrake control center comes to mind, but I hear YaST and Yum (I may be wrong on that one) are similar to this. I'm proposing a common "control center" where all the hardware that the user is concerned with such as scanners, cameras, mice, printers, graphics card, monitor, USB drives, Firewire drives, etc can be controlled and configured from. Hardware other than that like IDE controllers, USB controllers, internal hard drives, and other devices people generally don't have to worry about that are either hidden or not existent in this at all. This control center is independent of window mangers so gnome, kde, and icewm for example would not have to worry about it directly, just interfacing with it.

    The goal is to be able to walk into a store like best buy, see a little sticker on the box of a printer that says "Desktop Linux Compliant" and to purchase it knowing it's promised to work with their computer. So they take it home, out of the box, plug it in and something in the background like hotplug detects it first. It passes that information along to the control center. The control center informs the user of it's detection and either downloads the driver or asks for the CD the manufacture included.

    I know that sounds too good to be true, but let's pretend it's still possible.

    The manufacturer doesn't have to worry about supporting all linux distros and platforms, just the "Desktop Linux" standard. Their drivers are just modules in this control center. Printer modules can then connect up to something like cups to do the rest of the work.

    What makes this special is that as long as distros and manufacturers are compliant with these standards, everything should work properly. Drivers can be compiled for i386 or some other low common denominator or just delivered as source for simplicity.

    Same idea for a usb flash drive. It's inserted and the control center mounts it and opens up a konqueror window and displays it's contents. It's up to KDE to provide that part. The control center just gets the information from hotplug, mounts it, and tells the window manager to open a window.

    This whole concept is where open source should try to be. Central and enforced standards. The control center is probably just a bunch of interfaces for the distro, hardware maker, kernel, and window manager. But the goal is to bring them all together in one central location that's easy to use.

    I'm not suggesting to rewrite hotplug, cups, samba, or sane, but just to agree on a simple yet powerful interface for the user to trust. Hardware makers could develop modules for the control center that would be standard across all platforms and window managers.

    This still preserves one of the initial goals of linux to be customizable and compact. If someone doesn't want "Desktop Linux" then they don't have to install it. But distros would like this idea so they don't have to repeat the work SuSE and Mandrake did to get a scanner working. It also allows people to use lighter window managers because the hardware controlling ability in KDE is a reason I use it.

    So that's the idea I'm kicking around. Comment as you wish. I'll admit I don't know the technical difficulties this might entail, but distributing it across hardware, distros, and window managers could make it feasible.

    1. Re:My idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The Mandrake control center comes to mind, but I hear YaST and Yum (I may be wrong on that one) are similar to this.

      YAST is a control center type of tool as you say, but YUM is nothing of the sort. yum is like apt-get.

    2. Re:My idea by garcia · · Score: 1

      proposing a common "control center" where all the hardware that the user is concerned with such as scanners, cameras, mice, printers, graphics card, monitor, USB drives, Firewire drives, etc can be controlled and configured from.

      You mean like the kernel? Like where the applications interface to to get information about the hardware installed on the system?

    3. Re:My idea by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      No that is too unintuitive for most people. Plus it requires recompiling the kernel and then dealing with installing the kernel and configuring the bootloader. That is way too technical for most people and that's not something they should be expected to do to install USB mass storage so they can use their pen drive.

      I'm talking about removing some drivers from the kernel's "menuconfig" and into an interface that people can easily use.

    4. Re:My idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      get coding!

    5. Re:My idea by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      you seem to be talking close to sysfs and dbus, with some kind of virutual machine driver interface.

      sysfs and dbus do/will do what you sugest from the user point of view.

      Not sure you can really do the 100% generic drivers because it would lock you down with the backwards compatibily monster. With forceing drivers to be updated to the current kernel version helps premote open source because vendors have to play catchup. Right now at 6% market share we are starting to get a grip on vendors. Soon enough vendors will be nearly required to release good drivers.

      What happens when I need to build 100 windows systems and 15 linux systems. I call a vendor and state my order, they say we can do the 100 windows systems but we don't support linux, [click] call next vendor until I find one that supports all my systems.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:My idea by NorthDude · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hardware makers could develop modules

      Ain't this what we usually call drivers or am I misunderstanding your idea?

      Because right now the problem isn't really (or only) that we do not have proper gui to support hardware (or should I say to support users) but really that not all hardware have linux drivers.

      Your idea sounds ok, but when you say "Their drivers are just modules in this control center." you forget that this is only the visual part of the story. On the other part, the system need to know how to talk to said hardware, what feature it can use etc etc, and this is really what a driver do.

      For example, there is many sound card out there, but everyone of them has different set of features. In order to be able to use my Audiophile 2496 I need and interface (a driver) which will "route" my date thru it and let me access its fonctionality.

      I think that a universal control center may be a nice thing to have in the future, maybe not, but for now I would really like to just have drivers for all the hardware I have.

      Sorry if this sounded pedantic, I don't know how much you already know about all this! :-)

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    7. Re:My idea by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The proposed solution is DBUS and HAL. HAL is just an abstraction layer--it is a common library API that allows software to deal with hardware installation in a platform-independent manner. DBUS is a bit more sophisticated--from what I hear it's going to be an entire interprocess messaging system that will allow software to communicate with hardware via the HAL.

      Essentially what this means is that pretty soon, you can plug in a USB camera and have your shiny Gnome desktop popup a window telling you that you have just installed a camera, and providing you with some basic configuration options.

      The problem with a unified control panel is the various differences between distributions would make it impossible to maintain.

      What I would like to see is more standards defining how files in the /etc directory should be placed and formatted. This would allow a control panel that doesn't know everything about each configuration file, but rather serves as a more advanced text editor with a tree view to browse through configuration files. It would of course provide documentation for each file (like what each option does).

      Then we'd have a tool that both intermediates and advanced users would appreciate. It would also be simple enough to teach novices how to use (providing the documentation is good enough).

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    8. Re:My idea by naelurec · · Score: 1

      It sounds nice but you do have a lot of technical hurdles to jump over. The "desktop linux" driver would need to come in various flavors for the different platforms (powerpc, ia32, amd64, ia64, etc..) plus different kernels (2.4, 2.6, etc..)

      So the question ends up being -- what platforms to support for a given "desktop linux" stamp of approval? only 32bit x86 machines? only running 2.6 kernel? When you get to that point, do you start making "desktop linux" modifications (ie "desktop linux powerpc" or "desktop linux amd64") for platforms that did not make the cut?

      If you are going to do all that, why not stick with just listing out compatible distros (which lately seems to amount to Red Hat & SuSE)

      Personally I would like to see manufacturers release the source to their drivers. I *believe* it would then be feesible for the distro to accept the source and then automate the compile & installation of the driver for the particular platform.

      Even more ideal would be for manufacturers to release the source in a common repository, have the distro makers grab them and offer them up when the hardware is plugged in first time (ie: new hardware detected, do you wish to check online for the latest driver version? [yes/no] -- new driver installed) -- personally I think that would be fantastic. That way, as drivers are updated, during the normal system updating process, it would update drivers as well.

      Of course, my ideas are from an uneducated pov as I have never done driver development or any truly extensive kernel hacking/poking so even this idea might not be possible (though based on how distros currently work, it does seem feesible).

    9. Re:My idea by mcrbids · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your idea brings me to my #1 axe to grind with Linux - no support for Binary drivers.

      If there was a standard interface for drivers, vendors could be free to distribute drivers for *nix without giving away their "Secret sauce" to the OSS developers.

      Alas, Linus is opposed to doing this for philosophical reasons, resulting in the horrible cludges that are available in order to remedy a problem that the kernel guys just don't want to address, but really should.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    10. Re:My idea by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      Yeah one part is a driver. The other part is a control method such as a collection of scripts that's unified across a larger platform.

      For example, all digital cameras should have several standard functions. Download the pictures, add pictures, delete pictures. The manufacturer or someone in their spare time as it seems to be would set up their device to do that and only that.

      Scanners also have similar actions. I'm sure that for the existing drivers, these already exist. I can use digikam that uses gphoto and it does this well. But if I'm a manufacturer I have to decide what how to get the camera to work with linux. Do I try to get a driver in the kernel? Make one for gphoto or some other project? Give it just to the distros to put in their own camera accessing program? This confusion and complication is what I am trying to help.

    11. Re:My idea by pingus · · Score: 1

      If you really wanted to do something darn amazing, make an OS that has hardwre compatibility like Windows. Then, when users install it, have it compile a custom, tweaked kernel made just for that user's system. That would be teh awesome.

    12. Re:My idea by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      No. This is still an idea. I would like to see developers discuss this idea and figure out how to do it first. There is a lot to this that I haven't thought of, but discussing it with people would fix those problems.

      If someone tried to take something like this on their own and just start coding, they'd get no where.

    13. Re:My idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm proposing a common "control center" where all the hardware that the user is concerned with such as scanners, cameras, mice, printers, graphics card, monitor, USB drives, Firewire drives, etc can be controlled and configured from.

      Here's my second plan. Back in the Sixties I had a weather changing machine that was in essence a sophisticated heat beam which we called a "laser." Using this "laser", we punch a hole in the protective layer around the Earth, which we scientists call the "Ozone Layer".
    14. Re:My idea by adrianbaugh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a feature, not a bug. Linux runs on more than x86, you know - but have you ever seen a binary driver for anything other than x86? Making it such a pain in the arse to get binary modules to work is an encouragement for companies to release source (which can be compiled on anything you care to run linux on, probably including your dishwasher...)

      It sounds like what you're after is an operating system that positively encourages binary drivers and is only readily available on x86. And we all know how well that works...

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    15. Re:My idea by runderwo · · Score: 1
      It's not as simple as that. A "standard interface" for drivers involves abstraction, which affects performance negatively. It also involves development and maintenance for a feature which no kernel developer will care about or use, sucking up time which could be used for more generally useful things. It constrains new developments because the stable interfaces must be maintained in order to be useful. Furthermore, as you mentioned, it goes against the preferences of the folks who are actually writing the code.

      Implementing such a feature would be a pretty rotten bargain for their part, don't you think?

    16. Re:My idea by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      Your idea brings me to my #1 axe to grind with Linux - no support for Binary drivers.

      Really? NVIDIA seems to disagree, and they've done quite a respectable job with their binary Linux drivers. Just because you need a thin interface from the kernel to the real binary doesn't mean there's no support; Linux is under heavy development, constantly changing and evolving, so requiring this wrapper makes a lot of sense.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    17. Re:My idea by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Well.. in theory you could do that with modules I'd think...

      Still in the kernel, just linked dynamically instead of statically.

    18. Re:My idea by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Nope, try again. Linus is opposed to doing it for technical reasons, NOT for philosophical ones. You have him confused for someone else. He won't support a crappy interface once a better interface is designed. Linus thinks Open Source is better the closed source for the OS for Engineering reasons (it's better Engineering), then he does because he believes you have a god given right to see the source code for every binary you run (That'd be RMS's way, and it's associated with the term "Free Software").

      One of the reasons the Linux kernel has improved so much, is so stable, and can scale as well as it can, is that when there is a technical reason to dictate a change, the changes is made. They don't have to support bad decisions made years and years ago (actually they do if it affects userspace applications, but if it's internal to the kernel, it gets killed with impunity). To pick a particular example from Windows, the GDI memory goop that Win95, Win3.x and Win98 had. When you ran out of that, your machine was cooked. It didn't matter how much RAM you had, that amount of that was relatively fixed. It was a stupid problem, that caused me no end of pain, but there it was. I'm sure Solaris has one. Well, heck, I hear the TLI/STREAMs interface is vile, but it was one of the two standard driver models that was easy to write. However, it had very poor performance.

      The other thing that's nice about Open Source only drivers, is that there's one and only one implementation of a lot of stuff. Tons of network cards have essentially the same structure for a lot of the driver. All that gets refactored out into common modules for all drivers to use. If a bug is found in that shared code, it's fixed in all of them at once.

      Linus doesn't support Binary interfaces, because he has to choose between making it easy for you to have a non-open driver, or for making it easy for him to make the Linux kernel be as good as it can be. I'm all for making Linux as good as Linux can be. You might want him to choose "support a driver model for the lifetime of a kernel series", but I just buy hardware that is known working with Linux. Yeah it sucks at times that I can't get a specific piece of hardware that sounds cool, but I get Linux for free. I'll take that trade 8 days a week.

      Kirby

    19. Re:My idea by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      All that does is just add support for the device though. It doesn't control how it's used to is able to adjust it's settings. Enabling USB mass storage doesn't mean I can plug in a pen drive and expect it to automount and work.

    20. Re:My idea by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Linux is open source. Why don't you develop such an interface?

    21. Re:My idea by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Linux is open source. Why don't you develop such an interface?

      That reads something like: "You have a welder - why don't you make your own car?". Kind of asshat, if you ask me.

      The fact that Linux has an issue I'd like to see addressed another way doesn't stop me from accepting the deal. (Writing this on Mozilla/Fedora Core 1) It just means that from time to time I complain a bit about the parts I don't like.

      It's this feedback that frequently results in better software!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    22. Re:My idea by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 3, Informative

      But if I'm a manufacturer I have to decide what how to get the camera to work with linux. Do I try to get a driver in the kernel? Make one for gphoto or some other project?

      Neither. Just make your camera a USB mass storage device or make it talk PTP (Picture Transfer Protocol) so existing drivers can already talk to it.
      Ditto for printers - make it talk PS or PCL and release a PPD file. PPDs can be used with any OS.
      Have a similar protocol for scanners.

      Drive manufacturers did this decades ago with SCSI and ATAPI. Seagate and Maxtor don't need to create linux drivers, just make their HDD talk ATAPI, or SATA, or SCSI.
      Standards, folks. STANDARDS.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    23. Re:My idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're talking about is some unified interface to the graphical control centers in KDE, GNOME, YaST, etc. Something that would be a single install, show up in the control center of whatever distro/desktop environment that the user is running.

      You could do this by creating a dummy module for each control center that would load up some kind of configuration file and translate it to fit within the chosen environment.

      This would accomplish your goal from the bottom up. Rather than have a standards body that would enforce a uniform idea about hardware installation and configuration, the system would be a template that would guarantee that if you made your driver like this, then it would get compiled/installed for both the driver and configuration.

      You could use a pre-existing package format for installation, but create a tool for driver creators to make the package for each packaging system (rpm/deb/tgz).

    24. Re:My idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, try again. Linus is opposed to doing it for technical reasons, NOT for philosophical ones. You have him confused for someone else. He won't support a crappy interface once a better interface is designed.

      That, and because binary drivers make it impossible for them to track down problems because it introduces a kernel component they don't have source to - hence the introduction of the Tainted flag to indicate that binary-only modules are loaded.

    25. Re:My idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus is opposed to doing it for technical reasons, NOT for philosophical ones.

      Bullshit.

      Alternatively, please tell me what is wrong ("suboptimal") with Solaris driver API?

      S9 runs nicely S7 drivers.

    26. Re:My idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have locked SOLID a Solaris 8 box with the Realtek drivers for Solaris 7...

    27. Re:My idea by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Compiling for 386 is a bad idea...
      Useless for users on non x86 architectures..
      Useless for AMD64 users who are running in 64bit mode, same for the intel 64bit extensions to the xeon chips..
      Can't take advantage of new performance-improving features like mmx/sse etc, this is especially important for video-related drivers.. not just video cards, but video capture cards and such..
      Also these drivers can become useless if people upgrade their distribution, the ati firegl cards require xfree86 4.2.0 for instance, and theres the differences between kernel revisions - a lot of drivers dont support newer kernel versions

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    28. Re:My idea by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well, scanners used to use SCSI, as did some printers

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    29. Re:My idea by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Drivers on AIX come with smit menu entries. Smit is the standard admin tool, but is just a collection of scripts kept in a system database (ODM). Smit is accessible from command-line, browser, X GUI, even Palm. Sounds a lot like what you are talking about.

  14. just an observation... by Jimmy+The+Tulip · · Score: 0

    though the site is not working for this time. but while looking at the categories made, I am curious to know about unsupported motherboards and ethernet cards. I think that they must be all covered by linux drivers... but I am open to surprises!

    1. Re:just an observation... by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      I've not had luck with onboard network cards on ASUS motherboards, though the onboard sound cards seem to work everytime.

    2. Re:just an observation... by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      I have an Asus P4S533, and I have no problems with my onboard netword card. It's a SIS900 on my board.

      Also try checking the downloads for the motherboard at http://www.asus.com/

      Regards
      elFarto
  15. Wireless by digitect · · Score: 2

    I like the idea. I've just spent the last week trying to get a wireless PCMCIA card working, finally assembling enough documentation to understand exactly what chipset it has, what source is available, what packaging is not available (a non-developer's laptop), and the likelyhood of the distribution ever supporting it. (Binary wrapping, etc.)

    I often use Red Hat's compatibility list to find stuff that is known to work, but it would also be useful to have a list of stuff I'm wasting my time over.

    --
    There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
  16. Dead by W2k · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That's soon going to be a very very large wiki. Either because someone posted a link to it on Slashdot (expect 200 pages of Goatse ASCII art) or because there are just so many pieces of hardware that Linux won't work with (picks up a roll of duct tape, points at it illustratively).

    Unfortunately, the server seems to have gone down in flames already. How unfortunate. I'm sure everyone here has at least one piece of hardware they could contribute; I submit my #9 Imagine128 graphics card, which I never did get to work under RH9, despite it being in the list of supported cards. Oh well.

    --
    Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    1. Re:Dead by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I submit my #9 Imagine128 graphics card, which I never did get to work under RH9, despite it being in the list of supported cards.

      That touches on a problem that is probably going to make this project a lame duck. There are far more people out there who will give up or accept a compromise after repeated failures than there are those who keep going until they get things working. I suspect a large number of "x doesn't work" entries are more likely to represent "I couldn't get x to work". Clearly the latter doesn't necessarily mean that the device is incompatible with Linux, although it certainly implies there is room for improvement.

      No harm in trying though. ;)

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Dead by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1
      How unfortunate. I'm sure everyone here has at least one piece of hardware they could contribute; I submit my #9 Imagine128 graphics card, which I never did get to work under RH9, despite it being in the list of supported cards.

      I didn't find anyone else that mentioned that card. I thought that was very informative myself - more evidence that the list of supported hardware isn't perfect and that we all should investigate more before buying hardware - i.e. searching for posts like yours so we don't spend money on a card that doesn't work. Thank you, I found your post helpful.

      Sorry that you bought a card that doesn't work. :(

    3. Re:Dead by foonf · · Score: 1

      I submit my #9 Imagine128 graphics card, which I never did get to work under RH9, despite it being in the list of supported cards. Oh well.

      Those should be supported. I am using an old Revolution 3D in one of my computers, which uses the same driver, and it works fine. I don't know how they cope with autoconfiguration, but using simple text-mode tools to generate an XF86Config/xorg.conf file worked fine for me.

      Here is the documentation for the i128 driver in X11R6.7.

      --

      "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
    4. Re:Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't suppose the fact that the number nine imagine128 works for me under Slackware 9.1 makes a difference. It is slightly buggy I will admit, generally with regard to switching between text and graphics mode. It may be power management issues or just the crappy motherboard I have, though. It worked fine under Linux (Mandrake, Vector [based off slackware]) for my coworker who used it before he bought a fancy new nVidia card.

    5. Re:Dead by W2k · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, I didn't waste any money on the Imagine128; the same card today chugs along quite well in a machine running Windows 2000.

      --
      Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    6. Re:Dead by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      here are far more people out there who will give up or accept a compromise after repeated failures than there are those who keep going until they get things working. I suspect a large number of "x doesn't work" entries are more likely to represent "I couldn't get x to work".

      A very good point. As far as I am concerned an item of hardware "failed" if I plug it in, run some installer application and i am unable to sucessfully use it.

      I, personally, am not prepared to spend the next 30 minutes fiddling around with settings, config files and other things just to get the thing actually working. If the configuration script/installer can't do that for me, then it is not suitable for a desktop.

      But that is because I consider an operating system merely to be a tool to get other things done. However other people may be more willing to hack a it until it does - but frankly, I don't have the patience.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  17. Sounds good... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny
    but does it run Linux?

    .
    .
    .
    . oh. sorry.

    1. Re:Sounds good... by gg3po · · Score: 0

      Apparently, it doesn't run at all. :-)

      --
      ---
  18. Ahem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jonathan Lassoff writes "The Linux Incompatibility list was a wiki project that attempted to document hardware that is incompatible with Linux rather than list what is compatible. In the wiki, it was possible to add alternitives (spellcheck, folks) so as to push hardware manufacturers to make good binary drivers, publish specifications, or even better, publish open drivers."

  19. Bad drivers by Outsider_99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What happens if vendors just write some bloated rubbish driver just so they dont have to be on the list? Then we have badly supported hardware aswell?

    1. Re:Bad drivers by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      Never mind bloat, what about stability... you're headed rapidly towards... Windows!

    2. Re:Bad drivers by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      It's a Wiki, so the vendor could simply remove the hardware from the list, and keep removing it when it is freshly added.

    3. Re:Bad drivers by I'mJVC · · Score: 1

      Why would they, having their hardware listed there (properly listed) would save them a ton of tech support calls and mail from people who cant get it to work in linux.

      --
      Will add sig later...
    4. Re:Bad drivers by dyefade · · Score: 1

      What, like ATi you mean?

  20. 4:43 by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

    I predict that it will come back in about 20 minutes. (cue twilight zone music)

    1. Re:4:43 by Benevolent+Dictator · · Score: 1
      I predict that it will come back in about 20 minutes.
      The current time is 17:37 EST. No surprise, but you were wrong. =P
      --
      "One martini is all right. Two are too many, and three are not enough." (James Thurber)
    2. Re:4:43 by Benevolent+Dictator · · Score: 1

      And don't point out that I said 17:37 EST when the comment's post time is 17:38 EST.

      When clicked "Submit," the time really was 17:37 EST.

      --
      "One martini is all right. Two are too many, and three are not enough." (James Thurber)
  21. That's easy! by JoeCommodore · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Just about every piece of hardware I bought thinking I could use it with Linux...

    Actually later distros have mproved my situation, but I seem to pick the turkeys right off the bat.

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
  22. This will be useless by codefungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok. This incompatability list is gonna be useless...why?

    Hmm...I wonder if my DWL650+ is incompatable. Well...I don't see it in the list.

    I wonder if it's because it's compatable, or no one has assessed it yet!

    Jee...I guess I'll STILL need to search a million websites, etc. etc.

    --
    -- A cat is no trade for integrity!
    1. Re:This will be useless by MC+Negro · · Score: 1

      A bit OT, but yes it is. I use a DWL-650+ with my SuSE 9 Pro laptop all the time (plug and play). Of course, YMMV. :-)

      While I applaud the effort, and I'm sure many people will find it useful, I personally don't see this becoming a widely used resource. When I have problems with my hardware under Linux, I have a general routine of hitting Google, a few Wikis, some IRC channels and some forums. Between them, I get enough information to let me know what the situation is with the hardware in question. Rarely (in my experiences) is the hardware just straight 'incompatible'. I almost always find a hack on the Internet, or someone who's dealt with the same situation and come up with an ugly fix and/or solution. If hardware is truly incompatible, it tends tends to spread pretty fast in the Linux community anyway.

      Maybe it's because I tend to stick with rather plain hardware for my Linux needs (servers, etc...), but I have rarely turned to a centralized resource for my troubleshooting needs. It'd be interesting to hear what the more 'bleeding-edge' Linux brethren think about this, or how other Linux users solve hardware problems.

      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    2. Re:This will be useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not completely useless:

      Hmm...this DWL650+ is on sale, I wonder if it's a good deal. Hey, it's on the incompatible list, I think I'll pass.

    3. Re:This will be useless by Mongr · · Score: 1

      You think that maybe the reason it's not listed is because it IS compatible? I'm using one in my laptop. Worked with both the 2.4 and the new 2.6 kernel using the madwifi driver.

      --
      -=Mongr=-
    4. Re:This will be useless by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      No one knows, because there are umpteen different chipsets used in the DWL650 line. Early DWL650+ units had a prism2 chips, but later ones do not.

      D-Link as the prime adherent of the business practice known as "reusing model numbers to confuse the customer". You have carefully examine the serial number to know for sure just what particular card you have. I had three DWL650 cards a month ago that had identical boxes, identical labels, and identical prices, but with three different chipsets. The only indication of the differences was a single letter on the serial number sticker.

      Netgear isn't much better, though they do have the civility to mark the version number on the box. Of course, they still won't tell you what version number you'll get if you order online...

      I've given up on wifi and am boycotting the entire technology until the manufacturers stop screwing over the customer. Even Windows users should be outraged, because they can't updgrade their drivers or firmware, because they will not know exactly what card they have.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:This will be useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow you are clueless.

      its a starting point moron.

      do you understand that concept.

      it if it listed and recently updated, guess what you dont have to go anywhere else.

      nothing is comprehensive.

      but hey, way to make yourself look like a jerk by critisizing the hardwork of others.

    6. Re:This will be useless by sporty · · Score: 1
      Er? It is certainly not useless. At least if you see something on the list, it's already not usable.


      If you are thinking of buying a device, and you see it's on the list, you are least likely to buy it.


      If you have hardware already and it's on the list, you know linux won't work.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    7. Re:This will be useless by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      The point he was making was that there is no way to know if something is compatible with linux and so not in the list, or if it's simply that no one had added it to the list because they didn't know of the lists existance, or haven't tested it with linux to discover if it's compatible

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    8. Re:This will be useless by HermanZA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best way to get a compatible WiFi card is to buy a discontinued card on Ebay.

    9. Re:This will be useless by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      DWL650+, if advertised as the one capable of 22Mb/s operation, is a TI acx100 chipset.

      Functions well under driverloader and ndiswrapper, and the opensource acx100 driver ain't so bad, either.

      SuSE 9.1 will automatically install the acx100 driver, and download the necessary firmware.

      Works great, even at 22 Mb/s. 4x mode works too.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    10. Re:This will be useless by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for a vendor who will guarantee that the product I buy will work with Linux.

      Then, I don't really care if I get Netgear, Linksys, D-Link, because the vendor takes responsibility, not me. I don't feel moved to "boycott the entire technology", but I think a vendor that would take this responsibility for me would make paying full retail price for the cards worthwhile.

      And if the manufacturer screws around and puts the same product code on another product, the vendor needs to scream bloody murder on my behalf.

      I, the consumer, shouldn't be responsible for any of this. I know precisely what I want; a network card that works on my linux box. At the end of the day, all I want to know is the address of the vendor who will sell me this.

      I'm tired of being treated as if I'm doing something wrong just because I want to buy hardware that works on Linux!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    11. Re:This will be useless by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "A bit OT, but yes it is. I use a DWL-650+ with my SuSE 9 Pro laptop all the time (plug and play). Of course, YMMV. :-) "

      Of course it will vary. If I take your endorsement to the store, and buy the same card based on the information you have given, I am more likely than not to come home with a completely incompatable device, made by a company that is vehemently anti-linux.

      YOUR DWL-650+ works. That doesn't mean they all do (Many don't!) Some of them are TI, some are Realtek, and some are Prism2.

      You can't tell which one by looking at the box. Will your vendor give you a written guarantee that the card you buy will work under Linux?

      That's what I really want. A written admission by the vendor, taking the responsibility that the product is defective if it will not work under Linux.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    12. Re:This will be useless by bobbis.u · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I came across this too. I bought two D-Link switches a few months apart - same model number, same box, same manual, but DIFFERENT PSU VOLTAGE!!! It never did work right after I got the wrong PSU one day.

    13. Re:This will be useless by MC+Negro · · Score: 1

      I am more likely than not to come home with a completely incompatable device, made by a company that is vehemently anti-linux.
      Not if you verify the potential purchase's Linux compatibility against the vendor website. There is a D-Link DWL-650+ driver link right there. I know this certainly isn't the same for all hardware, but searching on the web prior to purchase to see what luck others have had is certainly not a bad thing.


      A written admission by the vendor, taking the responsibility that the product is defective if it will not work under Linux.
      So if a product doesn't work under Linux, it's 'defective'? Or am I misreading this?
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    14. Re:This will be useless by kavau · · Score: 1
      Argh! If I see one more person spell 'incompatable' on this list, I'm going to die from a brain embolism! It's 'incompatible'

      I-N-C-O-M-P-A-T-I-B-L-E

    15. Re:This will be useless by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Heh.

      I bought a clearanced Phoebe wireless setup from Radio Shit ($50 for the NIC connected WAP and two USB AP's) and had it up in running in Gentoo in a couple hours which was mostly research and maybe twenty minutes compiling. I've pretty well scripted the installation now, when I'm satisfied I'll dump the script on the sourceforge page I got the drivers from. Hopefully someone will get some use out of it.

      The USB WAPs still don't work reliably in Windows on the same laptop, power management kills the connection, and I have ditto for data as to why. At least in Linux I can look at the kernel log or tweak the source.

      Go figure. Windows. Bleh.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    16. Re:This will be useless by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >So if a product doesn't work under Linux, it's
      >'defective'?

      I wasn't clear --
      If the vendor represents to me that the product I am buying will work with linux, (to be fair, with a given configuration), and it fails to do so, then yes, it is defective.

      The problem is getting that assurance from any given vendor. Hardware compatability is *WAY* overdue.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  23. Good idea by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I never got over the frustration with the Wireless compatability list. See, the list is well done, and has lots of cards, and people seem to be working hard on it. The problem is, you cannot use the list as a resource to help you purchase a card! Many of the cards listed as compatable are either discontinued, have been changed to incompatable chipsets without changing the product model info, or else were only ever available in some regions.

    What I always wanted, instead of a long list of cards that are not available, was a short list of cards that will definitely work, together with addresses of vendors who will sell such a card with a written assurance that the product I receive will indeed work under linux.

    I was very upset when I bought a Broadcom device, thinking I was buying a Prism2 device. Even when you think you know what you're doing, you can get burned.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Good idea by fo0bar · · Score: 2, Informative
      I was very upset when I bought a Broadcom device, thinking I was buying a Prism2 device.

      See, that's your problem. "Broadcom", translated into common English, roughly means "screw the customer".

      Though I have yet to find a Broadcom chipset wireless card that doesn't work under ndiswrapper. Of course there are downsides (can't use with kismet, not open source and still relying on windows drivers, etc), but at the very least it allows you to do wireless.

  24. Wikis need moderation by tmk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have seen a project like this once before, it failed as foreseen. Someone put on a website, but he did not take much time to consider how users should and could use this list, how could it be updated and so on.

    Another project on the same website was to find the best(!) linux distrubution in a wiki - you can see the result here. Do I have to mention that the best distribution was not found?

    When you put on a wiki, you need clear questions and rules, you need moderators, who pick the useful infomation out of the chaos and set an reasonable structure for wiki readers and contributors.

  25. Good sign? by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

    It seems like a good sign that people want to keep a list of incompatible devices rather than compatible ones. Is hardware support becoming as complete as this site's beginning seems to indicate?

    Maybe, but maybe we're just getting more foolish webmasters.

  26. Integrated Intel i845GV graphics by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    Even with the newest kernels and drivers, running an opengl program on this will crash X within minutes, requiring a reboot. It leaks shared video memory until it can no longer allocate anything, then X crashes, and fails on each attempt to restart it. Long term problem, seemingly affecting everyone using it on Linux. My new cheap no-OS Dell shipped with one.

    1. Re:Integrated Intel i845GV graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running a 3D intensive program on a graphics card that shares memory with the OS? Well.. perhaps thats the problem...

    2. Re:Integrated Intel i845GV graphics by Bryan_W · · Score: 1

      Not under windows

    3. Re:Integrated Intel i845GV graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the same motherboard/video card. I just installed a 32MB ATI card I had lying around and voila, no more crappy video card problems. A new card like the one i used goes for like $10 on ebay.

    4. Re:Integrated Intel i845GV graphics by rmdir+-r+* · · Score: 1

      Try downloading and installing Intel's drivers (There website is pretty good). I did it, haven't had a problem since. (Well, actually, not true. X tends to crash when I CTRL+ALT+F1 out to do something in the console, but what the hey. Xterms ain't so bad...)

    5. Re:Integrated Intel i845GV graphics by syberdave · · Score: 0

      Hmm, this smells like a Dell/MS conspiracy.

  27. MOD UP -- FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, title says it all...

  28. ACPI by chaffed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm probably going to end up with a troll mod but...

    I think the first thing should be ACPI. ACPI support plain sucks under linux. I would pay the same amount for a linux distro as I do for MS XP pro ($200+/-) if that distro supported ACPI just as well as the MS operating systems.

    --
    What could possibly go wrong?
    1. Re:ACPI by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up if I could. Come on we're not asking for Apple level of ACPI (pure magic that just works), just MS ACPI level. So many times I'd thought I had ACPI working and then I hear my laptop's fan roaring from inside its bag or I open the lid and resume from sleep and have to restart X at the very least. I have NEVER seen Linux laptop that had working ACPI. I know they exist but I sure haven't seen them.

    2. Re:ACPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with ACPI support is not so much linux, but BIOS authors who don't follow the specs properly, therefore there are a huge number of work arounds that need to be done, even pretending the OS is XP when handling ACPI stuff can improve things.

    3. Re:ACPI by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      I have NEVER seen Linux laptop that had working ACPI. I know they exist but I sure haven't seen them.

      FWIW my Thinkpad i1300 running Debian 3.0r1(?) unstable seems to support ACPI just fine.

      Now if I could just get proper Hermes 2 WEP 128-bit support on it I'd be happy.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    4. Re:ACPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, your setup really sucks
      my Fujitsu 280DX, its a 233mhz chip had no issues.
      default debian, default kern

    5. Re:ACPI by andygodwin · · Score: 1

      Well, they do exist - I managed to get mine working after a long, long while, but now suspend-to-disk, the fan and everything works great... but I'd like to see it made a little easier, for sure.

    6. Re:ACPI by ArmorFiend · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoa, you're getting really ahead of yourself there. Before we work on getting ACPI supported, we need to figure out what the heck it is. As far as I can tell, based on talking to about 100 linux people, its "something to do with power management", but if you ask specific questions like "does it handle turning off the monitor", the answer is always "no". Also, if you try to establish its relationship with APM, you'll usually get a vauge reply like "the same but different". Mainly it seems to be another booby trap kernel module, that if you compile it you'll get inexplicable panics later. I love modules like that, especially when they've got cryptic names! We need more of them!

    7. Re:ACPI by runderwo · · Score: 5, Informative
      You're not trolling, but your last few words show a lack of understanding of the situation.

      ACPI is an open standard, but unfortunately, vendors' closed source BIOS implementations for the last few years are written against the Microsoft ACPI parser, bugs and all. Consequently, many machines fail to work at all with the Linux implementation (written against the standard) unless kludges or more relaxed syntax checking are used. This is not a failing of the Linux ACPI implementation or the ACPI specification. It is a Windows interoperability issue.

      It is unknown how many machines have bugs in their ACPI BIOS code. The only way the ACPI developers find these and special-case them is when users mail in their bug reports and DSDT (check here), because the developers don't have access to every machine on earth to perform testing on. Even when a bug is found, it can only be worked around, because most system BIOS in the field are no longer supported by the respective vendors. So you'll see messages from the ACPI layer regarding syntax errors or known bugs in a particular BIOS, which the developers are helpless to fix in any way other than a special-casing.

      Even worse is that many ACPI BIOSes return different values depending on which OS the vendor's ACPI code thinks you're running. Most of the time, any BIOS code path other than for an OS which calls itself "WindowsNT" is broken, so AFAIK, all ACPI layers simply spoof themselves as "WindowsNT" to the BIOS to avoid problems. Rather sad, isn't it?

      As a final note, some vendors like Tyan, HP, Intel, etc are extremely active on the ACPI and LinuxBIOS mailing lists. HP has fixed ACPI-related bugs in their system BIOSes due to the Linux ACPI code rooting them out.

      So the moral of the story is, don't assume poor ACPI operation on a specific machine is the fault of the Linux ACPI project. More often than not, it's the fault of the BIOS vendor not caring to implement the standard correctly beyond what it takes to get Windows up and running on the machine, which doesn't correspond 1:1 to whether or not they've implemented the standard correctly.

    8. Re:ACPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So many times I'd thought I had ACPI working and then I hear my laptop's fan roaring from inside its bag

      FWIW I have this exact problem on my IBM Thinkpad... ...running WinXP! [*]

      My personal feeling is that ACPI sucks everywhere - I've had such bad luck with it under both linux and windows.

      [*] Actually it's my company's laptop - I don't use MS products on any of my pesonal machine

    9. Re:ACPI by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      its a 233mhz chip

      No, YOUR setup sucks :)

    10. Re:ACPI by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      That's why I mentioned Macs. They just work and it works so well you don't notice it.

    11. Re:ACPI by karmaflux · · Score: 1

      It is worthless to support a standard that nobody implements. The linux ACPI project needs to figure out how Windows manages to work reliably and emulate that functionality.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    12. Re:ACPI by prockcore · · Score: 1

      I would pay the same amount for a linux distro as I do for MS XP pro ($200+/-) if that distro supported ACPI just as well as the MS operating systems.

      heh. The ironic thing is that linux supports my ASUS AMD64 motherboard just peachy.. while XP has problems. Suspend is sometimes greyed out, sometimes not, regardless it doesn't work even when it's not greyed out.

      It doesn't shutdown or reboot correctly (just hangs on "windows is shutting down...").

      The strange thing is that XP64 works just fine.

    13. Re:ACPI by chadruva · · Score: 1

      Linux ACPI Support is actually standards compliant, as written by the specs, even intel writted it!, the problem are manufacturers which sell laptops with broken acpi, and windows that has a broken acpi support that only works with broken implementations (thus everyone has to write broken code to make it run on windows), tough windows code suposly detects broken bios and enables workarounds, this will only promote the broken bios that companies put on your laptops.

      Yeah, i read about this somewere.

      --
      C-x C-c
    14. Re:ACPI by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      Easy to do if the same company controls both the hardware and the OS. This seamless integration between OS and HW is probably the main thing the Mac has going for it, and for this reason I would love to add a Mac to my collection of computers.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    15. Re:ACPI by runderwo · · Score: 2
      It is worthless to support a standard that nobody implements.
      You're out of your mind. Using your logic, there is no value in supporting any new standard, because at that point nobody has implemented it yet.

      ACPI is a usable and solid platform; unfortunately it just so happens that the only vendor who embraced it from the very beginning has done a bang-up job of, well, banging it up. Netscape did a great job pissing all over HTML in the old days, and Microsoft followed them by pissing all over DOM and CSS. Does this mean that nobody should bother doing things the right way? How is progress made if everyone just follows the leader?

      The linux ACPI project needs to figure out how Windows manages to work reliably and emulate that
      <sarcasm>Sure, because reverse engineering a binary-only operating system is obviously the most efficient way for people interested in ACPI to spend their time.</sarcasm>

      Anyway, this isn't an issue of "reliability". With few exceptions, the ACPI code works fine if your machine isn't broken. I run at least 10 desktop systems in ACPI mode and never have any ACPI-related trouble.

    16. Re:ACPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using your logic, there is no value in supporting any new standard, because at that point nobody has implemented it yet.

      That's not his logic at all -- someone HAD implemented it (many years before Linux did), and therefore its important to remain compatible with that implementation.

      (All this talk of "standards" is BS anyway, There's been no standards certification of Linux implementation, so for all you know its more buggy than windows'.)

    17. Re:ACPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed.. The sooner the linux acpi project stops bitching that its MS and/or the BIOS vendors fault that ACPI doesnt work correctly the better. As has ben posted, ACPI works fine under XP, so as a consumer, I would expect the same under linux without any issues.

    18. Re:ACPI by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Problem: ACPI is an open standard, but unfortunately, vendors' closed source BIOS implementations for the last few years are written against the Microsoft ACPI parser, bugs and all.

      Possible Solution: Accept that if something is used by the vast majority of hardware vendors out there, it just may be the new "standard". Swallow that anti-Microsoft sentiment and get the god damned thing working. Remember if it doesn't work with anything it is an inferiour product so stop claiming otherwise.

    19. Re:ACPI by 808140 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Certification is a load of crap. Standards provide a clearly written definition of how something is supposed to work; if an implementation doesn't work the way the standard outlines it, it is by definition buggy. We don't need certifiers to "look it over" for us; they're just humans anyway and in an open source project we have many more eyeballs than they do. Witness how POSIX compliant the Linux kernel is, despite having never been certified.

      Certification is a marketing thing, really. An appeal to authority (ie, standards org says we comply, and since you trust them, you can trust us!)

      As for just "doing what Windows does", this is a very bad idea, for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that if we accept this, we'll always be playing catchup to MS's latest bug. Everytime they release a new ACPI parser, it's gonna have some new quirk in it -- they'll probably start doing it on purpose once they realize we're trying to emulate them.

      No, far better to get the OEM manufacturers on the standards boat. They claim to comply with a published standard; we can use this against them when they obviously don't. It would be bad form for them to claim to comply when they don't -- in the US, this is even illegal (false advertising), and as such a lot of them are willing to fix their bugs if we just report them. Since they mostly only test with Windows, I'll wager, they may honestly not even be aware of them.

      Linux is becoming more and more important, believe it or not. People might not run it on the desktop much, but they run it on servers, and they want stuff to just work. It's becoming stupider and stupider for OEM manufacturers to break compatibility with Linux, because if word gets out that their hardware won't run Linux or runs it poorly, they'll get bad press. This is why they care.

      We're past the point (really) of chasing MS's coattails. Most small web companies are using low end PC-compats running Linux, not dual Xeons running Win Server 2k3. We don't need to be the world's main desktop OS to matter.

      We're already very important.

    20. Re:ACPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the BIOS vendor not caring to implement the standard correctly beyond what it takes to get Windows up and running on the machine, which doesn't correspond 1:1 to whether or not they've implemented the standard correctly.

      Correction: the current version of Windows. Some of these ACPI implementations will crash and burn when the next version of Windows comes out. Some of them, released before XP, won't work with Windows XP.

    21. Re:ACPI by hopethishelps · · Score: 1
      The sooner the linux acpi project stops bitching that its MS and/or the BIOS vendors fault that ACPI doesnt work correctly the better. As has ben posted, ACPI works fine under XP

      Recent BIOS implementations work under XP. Some older ones don't, because the manufacturers only tested them against older Windows. Some of the current implementations, that are tweaked for XP, might stop working when Longhorn comes out.

      This is a mess. In the long run, the only way to get something that works reliably is for the BIOS manufacturers to implement the standard, not to cobble together something that seems to work with the flavor du jour of Windows. The Linux APCI project is absolutely right to bitch about BIOS vendors who haven't implemented the standard properly. The most effective thing for the Linux community to do, is to publish a list of which vendors implement the standard, so that when we buy machines, we can choose ones in which ACPI is done right.

    22. Re:ACPI by ojQj · · Score: 1
      You know both of you may be right, but I tend to agree more with GP.

      I just spent 3 hours last night trying to get a certain feature working under linux (soundcard talking to CD player). Result, 3 hours of frustration and no progress. On my Windows on the same machine it works without problem. This is not the first problem I've had with Linux. The worst was when Yast offered to repair my installation and kindly mismounted my harddrives, causing linux to fail to boot. At least I got that one fixed though.

      I'd be willing to wager that I have considerably more patience than the average user. Most would have booted Linux, seen that it didn't work and stopped using Linux. It doesn't matter to 90% of your users who's fault it is. They just want something that works.

      So maybe your long-term view will serve Linux well. But maybe, by the time all the quirks are out of ACPI, the next technology will be in.

      I'd like to see Linux succeed, and I'm not convince that it will from what I've seen.

    23. Re:ACPI by P-Nuts · · Score: 1

      My experience with Linux + ACPI + nVidia:

      1. Install Gentoo with 2.4.x kernel
      2. Activate ACPI in kernel; machine powers down on halt
      3. Install X with nv driver - works
      4. Install nVidia driver - get garbled crap in X
      5. Disable ACPI in kernel - X works with nVidia driver
      6. Accidentally leave machine on the whole time after shutdowns
      7. Upgrade to 2.6.x kernel
      8. See if ACPI and nVidia get on now - they do
      9. ...
      10. Profit?
    24. Re:ACPI by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Swallow that anti-Microsoft sentiment and get the god damned thing working.
      It's far easier and technically the Right Thing to write a new ACPI layer from scratch and deal with the compatibility headaches, rather than to reverse-engineer Microsoft's ACPI code and try to emulate it, notwithstanding the legal issues involved. Why emulate a buggy closed-source competitor when the whole idea is to do it better?

  29. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many hardware manufacturers are hard-pressed to produce drivers. If they can make a driver that will suit 95% of the market, most will stop there rather than supporting another to serve the 1-2% using linux... that's why there are niche providers serving that market.

    This is not true for some of the larger companies, of course.

    And who can blame them? It is pretty simple economics.

  30. Re:My idea is uneducated and OFFTOPIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the article, maybe. How did this get rated up to a 4? Amazing.

  31. Re:Sunbeam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux for servers, NetBSD for toasters.

  32. Thanks by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    Thank you for clearing that up. My experience with fedora is very limited, but I thought I'd mention it anyway just in case I was right. Bad move on my part I suppose.

  33. Isn't a compatibility list better? by Kiyooka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That way, you can be assured that, if it's listed, it works.

    With an incompatibility list, you don't know whether some obscure hardware actually works, or whether nobody's bothered testing it yet. Even if they have tested it, hundreds more will have to test it again because, again, it still won't be on the list, so they don't know whether it's been tested or just forgotten.

    1. Re:Isn't a compatibility list better? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Two different purposes. If I'm going out and buying a new system I check the compatibility list, and ignore this. If I have a flakey install, and I'm not sure if it's my mistake or just a bad driver, I can check this.

      Also, it serves as a central point for advocacy, let everyone who has an issue with one of these products collect and aggregate themselves to complain to manufacturer.

    2. Re:Isn't a compatibility list better? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "That way, you can be assured that, if it's listed, it works."

      If you say so. Didn't work out that way for me and Linksys WPC-11 devices. Also, it doesn't help if not one single item on the list of compatable devices is availabe from any vendor.

      I still don't know whether I should stop looking for a driver for the SD card reader on my Toshiba Laptop, or if it will not be supported at all. I'd really like to know.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  34. S(laughter)lashdot house by hugo_pt · · Score: 1

    Connection to database failed Server process fork() failed: Cannot allocate memory Really, you guys are evil. leave the poor server alone!

  35. Dam!!! by LoganGD · · Score: 1

    Oh hell!! I wonder if in far far galaxy away someone managed to make this dam winmodem of mine work in linux... I Think Ill be giving my contribution as well. Sucks..

    1. Re:Dam!!! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      You have only yourself to blame. You get what you pay for an most things tend to do what their names imply. You bought a WINmodem and tried to use it on LINux, why did you think that would work?

      Yes I do know there have been modules for winmodems for a long time but I still don't understand why people want them. I have never understood the missguided notion that an internal modem is ever a good plan. External is always better because you can reset the modem without reseting the PC and every modem I ever met needs to be reset now and again.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Dam!!! by LoganGD · · Score: 1

      Even facing the fact that the manual says run on microsoftme200xP..blablabla, the manual also says, designed for PC users. Its cheaper and here in brazil a hard modem is as expensive as a video board, even the dialup ones. That was my only option. And so the option of millions here. But if you dont care how many users are stating to use linux or the portabilty for "simple humans that know nothing bout computers", thats right, im wrong for buying pc hardware.

  36. Re:My idea is uneducated and OFFTOPIC by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    I feel it's on topic because some hardware is not compatible with linux because the manufacturers don't want to deal with the complicated process of getting their drivers to work with linux. Anyone who's ever configured an NVIDIA graphics card knows what I'm talking about.

  37. Re:I like that idea! by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    Oh, the "Linux IA32" page in nVidia's download area where you download a distribution-agnostic .run script must be mislabeled then.

  38. Re:My idea is uneducated and OFFTOPIC by garcia · · Score: 1

    Care to explain how your "solution" will solve that problem? Companies will still need to distribute drivers in order for it to be included into your even more bloated vision of xconfig.

    What we need to do is lure companies to supporting Linux with non-binary distributions of their drivers.

  39. it's already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    it's called microsoft windows

    1. Re:it's already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows is based on Linux? Shit, I might switch.

  40. Re:I like that idea! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well, bearly might mean pretty well.

    ROARRR

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  41. Re:I like that idea! by Paladine97 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Uh yeah video cards do work on the same plug and play concept. It's called VESA. And it sucks.

    You can setup X to work with VESA just fine. Oh wait, you don't know how to do that? I wouldn't call it 'not' compatible just because you don't know how to configure X.

    NVidia has some great binary drivers you can use with X. Download them from NVidia.com; an installer is included.

  42. A little extreme... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why put something on the list that works for some people?

    Just put up what chipsets / laptops don't work with the current linux kernel, and that should be enough. My Dell Lattitude C610 works flawlessly with kernel 2.6.3 power management; Also my HP omnibook 6000 works perfectly.

    I really haven't tried many other laptops as I don't have much money, but I don't think ACPI should be written off simply because you have not had a good experience with it.

    BTW, what kernel were you using? What distro? That may give some clue as to how recent your problems are. (Notice that we have no frame of reference; when did you have problems with ACPI?)

    It's not even clear if you use linux anymore.

    1. Re:A little extreme... by chaffed · · Score: 1

      Just last week :) I've been wanting to run Debian on my Vaio r505 with slimdock (getting debian installed using the firewire slimdock is a feet in it's self)

      However out of frustration I tried the lattest Mandrake commmunity and Fedora 2 releases with no success under fedora and only partial with mandrake (I was able to get battery monitoring to work).

      I'm not sure what the exact kernel versions were in those distros howver I know they were 2.6.2 or newer.

      BTW, No I do not use linux in a desktop envrionment because honestly, desktop software under windows is better than linux. However I love linux like it was my own child when I run it for backend things.

      --
      What could possibly go wrong?
  43. It is not so bad /.ing as it appears... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1
    So we slashdotted only a database server behind wiki, not a web server:
    no connection to the server

    while executing
    "pg_exec $::pg_link $query"
    (procedure "DBRawQuery" line 6)
    invoked from within
    "DBRawQuery $query"
    (procedure "DBQuery" line 7)
    invoked from within
    "DBQuery "SELECT id FROM yakuwiki_page WHERE id='%s'" $id"
    (procedure "checkPageId" line 2)
    invoked from within
    "checkPageId $id"
    (procedure "show" line 4)
    invoked from within
    "show $page"
    ("show" arm line 1)
    invoked from within
    "switch -- $op {
    show {show $page}
    edit {edit $page}
    update {update $page}
    history {history $page}
    diff {pagediff $page $rev}
    upload {wikiupload ..."
    (procedure "main" line 13)
    invoked from within
    "main"
    ("uplevel" body line 1)
    invoked from within
    "uplevel main"
    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  44. How about not detected and installed? by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Depending on how they define this, it may not be of much use to many non-1337 Linux users. Detectability is what would be a lot more useful. My first experiences trying to install Linux (about last year, so not too long ago) were that my sound card and (S3) video card were not found on install from any distro. From searching the web, I found several places where people would say they had gotten those devices to work, but it involved running some script they wrote, compiling and loading modules, or compiling a custom kernel. I wouldn't really consider that as being very "compatible".

    --
    We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  45. Re:I like that idea! by Lispy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have that very special GeForce 5200 and it rocks with Slackware-Linux. The NVidia Binary Drivers work just fine. If you can't get them to work maybe Linux isn't for you. The installer is really easy compared to other Linux hardware.

    The card is not the best one out there but given the real cheap price it is a good value for the money. If you are like me and like to play Neverwinternights or any other 3D game (except maybe for Doom3) that is available for Linux you will have a lot of fun with this card. Most of these, rather old, games are fully supported at very high resolutions with this 50$ card.

    I'd recommend it anytime, especially because it's passive (i.e. silent) and can be easily overclocked with nvclock.

  46. Am I the only one? by jayloden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only person in the world who's had almost zero issues with linux and hardware? With the exception two wireless cards that had proprietary chipsets, I have had zero issues with linux and hardware. I've used Slackware 10, mandrake 9.2 and 10.0, Suse 9.1 pro, College Linux, RedHat 7.3, Slax, Knoppix, morphix, -lost count of the rest of them- on computers ranging from PII AOpen computers to my AMD64 desktop to my Dell Inspiron laptop.

    Actually, I'll amend that, I haven't gotten any of the modems to work (never tried, not counting dial-up access among my needs).

    When I did run into my first issue, with supporting a wireless card running a TI proprietary chipset(meant to double 802.11b to 22mbps ONLY with SMC hardware), I went online and purchased a cheap Netgear card that has proceeded to work on every single distro I've tried without even having to configure it, it just worked.

    People complain about linux hardware support, but I do a heck of a lot less work after installing linux than I do installing Windows drivers after a reformat.

    Maybe I'm lucky **shrugs**

    1. Re:Am I the only one? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I haven't had your experience, but mine has been pretty good.

      I've had a couple pieces of junk which frustrated me:
      A) UMAX parallel scanner. This might work now, but not when I first wanted to use it.
      B) Brother MFC-4350 laser/fax/printer. Erractically works then doesn't work. Won't work at all in later 2.4/2.6 kernels.
      C) Some degree of frustration with getting OpenGL acceleration working, either open DRI ATI drivers, closed binary ATI drivers, or binary Nvidia drivers. Eventually, I can get it to work, but sometimes its frustrating. SuSE deals with these remarkably well, though.
      D) ACPI Suspend never works on my Inspiron 8200. APM Suspend works on it, but crashed 1/4 of the time restoring.

      Most of these issues are from between 1 to 6 years ago.

      Things have gotten substantially better. I think that for the most part it is people who have been using Linux for a long time used to get really frustrated with hardware compatabilities. I certainly did, but things have improved so much that I can safely say I have fewer problems with Linux hardware drivers than Windows hardware drivers. I hate gathering up all my Windows drivers for a reinstall. Drives (no pun intended) me nuts.

      This is especially true if you put a modicum of thought into your purchasing decisions, i.e. don't get an S3 graphics card--- Don't poo poo me, they are pieces of crap in Windows, too.

      BTW: Driverloader deals with proprietary wireless cards great. Runs any Windows XP 802.11a/b/g driver (just about). www.linuxant.com. Costs ~30 bucks. ndiswrapper works too, but not as well.

      Also, I'm familiar with that TI chipset, the acx100 (and its big brother, the acx110 (802.11g version)). There are now opensource drivers for it, it works extremely well in Driverloader, and works under ndiswrapper.

      If you use SuSE, YaST Online Update will automatically install the card firmware/driver, and then you can easily set it up---works great, 22 Mb/s too.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    2. Re:Am I the only one? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      I had some issues back in the 2.2 days, but ever since 2.4 came out I've been somewhat judicious about hardware purchases and I've not had a problem since.

      See, I don't bitch about hardware compatability because my box is top-to-bottom Linux clean. It's really not hard to get a system built that's 100% Linux-friendly, you just have to go for the big brands, stay away from bleeding-edge stuff, and only buy stuff with chipsets you can identify.

      Right now I'm in the market for a FireWire card for my box, but I can't figure out which chipset will yeild the maximum performance, so I'm holding off until I do more research.

      I wouldn't buy a car without knowing what kind of brakes it had, and I don't buy computers if I don't know what kind of chips they contain.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    3. Re:Am I the only one? by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one. In my case, I've had a pretty good run because I expect to have problems and go out of my way to hunt down hardware that will work. I hunted down a PCI modem with a real UART for my IPCop firewall, I have on old HP deskjet printer, and I chose a NIC with a chipset that I knew I had drivers for.

      My next hardware purchase will involve taking the laptop with me, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

      Some research before you buy can save a lot of headaches later. This wiki is part of the overall research a hardware purchaser can use.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    4. Re:Am I the only one? by pfriedma · · Score: 1

      Using Mandrake, i've never had problems with hardware including kinds that are even somewhat obscure... My firewire CDRW drive never had any problems nor does my hp officejet printer/copier/scanner nor my webcam nor digital camera. My soundcard's 'special' features (s/pdif out, etc) require a bit of poking in Windows but work just fine in Linux. I've since switched to Gentoo and have also not had any problems. I don't know if i'm a perticularly rare case, but I've never had to spend any time getting linux to work... especially with distros like mandrake or suse which do most config for you. The last time I spent any substantial time poking at linux is when I wanted to add animations to my bootplash theme :-/

      --
      Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
    5. Re:Am I the only one? by entrigant · · Score: 1

      I'm not a heavy hardware person primarily because I can't afford it, but among the things I own that linux does not support are my philips seismic edge soundcard and my wintv-pvr (the first one not the new ones with decent support). I also use to own a little usb device that when combined with some web software told you what songs were playing on a radio station at a certain time which did not have support. Also, my dxr3 based sigma designs dvd playback card did not have decent support for the longest time, and its support is still only due to a heavy reverse engineering effort and is still hackish. You may have been lucky, but there is still a lot of nice hardware out there w/o linux support.

  47. 2 things by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    What if your device is claimed to be compatable out of the box by several distros but when you try it takes 4 solid days of trying 4 different drivers and every combination of config you can think of and suggestions from 20 different forums/lists/newsgroups before the light even comes on and even then its touch and go? no but seriously saying x device is compatable and x device actually being compatable are two separate things.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  48. Is this the right idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It seems that when a driver is finally made then that hardware will have to be removed from the list which will make a huge hassle. I think compatibilty makes more sense here.

    1. Re:Is this the right idea by RichiP · · Score: 1

      As a consumer, I'd like to know if a piece of hardware won't work on my preferred OS (Linux). If a piece of hardware isn't listed on the Hardware Compatibility list, that doesn't automatically mean that it isn't. Having the Incompatibility List is a definitive way to answer that question.

  49. The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by Spoing · · Score: 5, Informative
    Take a look here.

    Most digital cameras these days support both of these protocols;

    1. USB mass storage
    2. Picture Transfer Protocol (PTP)

    The Kodak is probably one of them. If it is using another mode, or if one of them does not work well enough (typically PTP), switching to the other mode will fix the problem. This is a camera setting, not an OS setting.

    This means; no special software for each specific camera. All PTP camera-aware tools work the same. All mass storage cameras work just like flash storage drives.

    In addition, most distributions support linking known USB cameras to the /camera or /mnt/camera mount point automatically; plug it in and a camera shows up.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    1. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by garcia · · Score: 1

      it seems to requite gPhoto which would assume that I use X... I don't. The camera is not supported by the kernel (which was my original point).

      Yes, you can use a CF card reader and use mass storage (which is what I do) but that still doesn't mean that the camera is supported.

    2. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by adrianbaugh · · Score: 5, Funny

      I overjoyed when, having bought a Fujifilm camera, I realized I could justify having /mnt/fuji on my system. Oh well, little things please little minds I suppose... ;-)

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    3. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by Spoing · · Score: 3, Informative
      Gphoto is a library and does not require X. Early versions did have a GUI, though mostly as a practical demonstration.

      Additionally, if the camera has USB mass storage support, and you can use a USB thumb drive, you can plug in your camera. Check the camera documentation for how to enable this mode.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    4. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange ... I though that gphoto was a command line tool.
      I just installed it and it is indeed a command line that does not require X.
      And the tools reports that the Kodak DX4530 is supported cameras.
      See http://www.gphoto.org/proj/gphoto2/

    5. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Funny


      LOL, I had the same kind of, um, epiphany when I bought my Fujifilm S3000 last winter :) /mnt/fuji just seemed so... intuitive :D

      Been damned happy with that camera. Having one that mounts as a usb storage device can also be really handy, I use it's ability to connect to a TV/VCR to upload images to it and record them to VCR so I can send them to my internet-impaired relatives :)

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    6. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by crucini · · Score: 1
      From the command line:
      gphoto2 -P

      will suck all the pictures out of many cameras. I'm not sure what kernel support you're talking about. If it's a USB camera and shows up as a USB device, you can probably do at least one of:
      1. Mount it as a filesystem.
      2. Use Gphoto.

      3. I don't think the kernel needs to explicitly support your camera in any way.
    7. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'd rather have an olympus camera, I've always loved greek mythology.

    8. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Power spikes would be Zeus's methodology then :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    9. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by paxmark1 · · Score: 1

      And all the bash scripts that you can name with funny ha ha names to input, mogrigfy out of .jpg, etc.

    10. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by paxmark1 · · Score: 1

      why use gphoto when you can use mc to transfer. ImageMagick and Perl. Besides, some things, like GTK-gallery use glib and gtk+2 2.4 Looks to be awhile before that gets into Mandrake. Whole slew of dependencies. Update .png stuff for security

    11. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be /media/fuji, you insensitive clod!

    12. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      personally, I'd like and Olympus E-1 on /mnt/olympus ;)

    13. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... by Mordibity · · Score: 1

      I chortled the same way when I wrote my slurp-pix-from-camera script: "Behold Mount Olympus!" ;-)

  50. no connection to the server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no connection to the server

    while executing
    "pg_exec $::pg_link $query"
    (procedure "DBRawQuery" line 6)
    invoked from within
    "DBRawQuery $query"
    (procedure "DBQuery" line 7)
    invoked from within
    "DBQuery "SELECT id FROM yakuwiki_page WHERE id='%s'" $id"
    (procedure "checkPageId" line 2)
    invoked from within
    "checkPageId $id"
    (procedure "show" line 4)
    invoked from within
    "show $page"
    ("show" arm line 1)
    invoked from within
    "switch -- $op {
    show {show $page}
    edit {edit $page}
    update {update $page}
    history {history $page}
    diff {pagediff $page $rev}
    upload {wikiupload ..."
    (procedure "main" line 13)
    invoked from within
    "main"
    ("uplevel" body line 1)
    invoked from within
    "uplevel main"

  51. Re:Sunbeam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux for servers, NetBSD for toasters.

    FreeBSD for coffins

  52. They need another list..... by JohnTheFisherman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...of hardware that has released open source drivers several years ago and *still* doesn't work reliably in Linux. Take the Soundblaster, for example - a very common item, that still doesn't work a lot of the time, across multiple (all major ones, certainly) distributions. I duplicated this time and time again with my Soundblaster Live! card. IIRC, Fedora Core 2 and Mandrake 10 Official finally started working again, but I gave up on them after the myriad of other problems I had (none of which were driver-related). See the Linux's Achilles Heel article and the follow up.

    1. Re:They need another list..... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Ok this project might be too demanding. For example the same model Pinnacle Dv200 firewire capture card had a green board and a red board. They are essentially the same card. How can all the users be this detailed? Nowadays even hardware boards have multiple different versions.

    2. Re:They need another list..... by kinko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that's the purpose of this list. The linux kernel (both 2.4 series and 2.6 series) have supported both SB16 and SBLive for *years*.

      If your distribution doesn't automatically work out the correct settings for the hardware, then that's not the kernel support's fault. I think this list is for hardware that can not be made to work on linux using open-source drivers.

      Having said that, ISA cards can be fiddly to get going cos you need to fiddle around with irq and ioports settings, or get the bios and kernel working is isa-plug-and-pray.

    3. Re:They need another list..... by JohnTheFisherman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but the gripe as stated in the story summary is often that the hardware vendors haven't released drivers or specs, and that isn't always the reason the parts don't work. Creative released open source drivers, and while it certainly has (from time to time) worked, and works fine out of the box for *some* people, it has consistently been an issue for me and several other people. Mine was PCI, and I tried it (several SB Lives through work and home) with several mobos, and hardly ever had a good configuration out of the box. Sometimes I got it working, but a lot of the time, I just gave up, and waited for the next release or another distro to hopefully fix the problem.

      The typical caveats: I've always used good quality hardware, I've tried Intel/AMD and several mobos, almost always the same result: no/bad sound. I can't seem to ever convince a lot of people here that the issue is real, and they instead attack me or blame the hardware, which (yikes!) works fine in Windows. As evidenced by the Achilles Heel articles and replies from other people, I'm not alone.

      It would also probably be easier to convince manufacturers to release more information if they knew it would be well cared for and not make them look dumb, since a lot of people aren't going to understand why a card doesn't work and just return it to the store saying it's broken. The SBLive! driver sets a bad precedent for this.

    4. Re:They need another list..... by pkarlos_76 · · Score: 1

      Uh what planet are you from, I'm from www.google.com and my SB Live 5.1 works great using Debian SID. IN fact I used Kanotix LIVE CD which is designed for installation to hdd but retains the live cd feature, it's at www.kanotix.com.

    5. Re:They need another list..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they supported SOME SBLive cards -- Others such as a Dell model remain unsupported. There's also the ALSA/OSS thing.

      Nobody said anything about SB16 and ISA.

    6. Re:They need another list..... by Drakon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think anyone was blaming the hardware.
      The hardware is probably fine. The user or the distribution are much more likely to be at fault.
      Occasionally I compile a kernel that breaks support for a previously working piece of hardware, but at that point I can regress to my previous kernel or recompile the kernel with correct options.
      I believe in 2.6.7 my SBLive didn't work when the driver wasn't a module but that was more likely my fault.

    7. Re:They need another list..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      I have a Adigy 1 and it uses the same drivers as the soundblaster live! stuff and it works perfectly.

      I even do REAL surround sound (and not no prologic crap either) thru Ac3 passthrough into a digital reciever via the spdif/out when using Xine.

      I use the alsa drivers.

    8. Re:They need another list..... by enterprisearchitect · · Score: 1

      Apparently a bunch of people still need to find a way to move away from home, so that they understand most people do not want to fuss with going from site to site, using google, etc, to get something running that they spent $500 - $3000.

      There are people interested in spending a little or a lot of extra time to migrate to linux. Some people even follow enough forums, google responses, etc, to buy new machines that are more compatible with the various Linux distro's out of the box.

      I believe the original point in this thread was that for the general consumer, Linux sucks from the perspective of compatibility. As linux has matured over time, it has gained quite a bit of maturity.

      And the bickering about vendors writing drivers, do like some of us and write your own, then give it to the vendors and the community, and stop your bitching. If the majority out there finds it useful you may perk the interest in the vendors.

      The thing I really enjoy about Linux is the fact that I still need to compile a kernel to get some components to work...

      In regards to "REAL surround sound" try to find a better accomplishment, people running other OSes have been doing simular tasks for a long time. So really is it that big of a feat???

      Don't interpret this wrong, I like linux and use it everyday.. I also use several other operating systems. Someday someone will fix the core X86 operating system, the BIOS.....

      Also note, the Linux vs Windows war, is more of a hinderance than a benefit for promotion.

      --- "Don't mistake motion for action!" Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:They need another list..... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about these issues with sound and Linux, and it makes me boggle a bit.

      I've been using Linux since January 1992 (when it didn't have sound support at all, or even init/getty/login for that matter). Indeed, the vast majority of PCs didn't even have sound cards. When Linux did get sound support for the few soundcards that existed, I never had a problem getting sound to work. In fact, it was one of the easiest things to get working - this was in 1993 or thereabouts.

      In all the Linux installations I've done in the last 4 years, sound has always worked out of the box, and I've installed on pretty disparate hardware. I just installed Fedora Core 2 on a laptop yesterday (laptops being generally the hardest machines to install Linux on due to the amount of proprietary oddball hardware nothing else uses), and sound worked perfectly out the box.

    10. Re:They need another list..... by JohnTheFisherman · · Score: 1

      It makes me boggle too - as with the previous article, it's 2004, and sound cards are still a sizable issue. FC2 actually worked for me right away, too - I don't recall what the last RH version that did.

    11. Re:They need another list..... by JohnTheFisherman · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone was blaming the hardware.

      Wow, this is a first for me. See any of my other comments regarding issues I've had with Linux - it's the first thing people suspect, then when I report that it works fine in Windows and didn't work fine in multiple Linux setups, then they call me a liar and blame the hardware again. Or me, because, you know, when I clicked 'install now,' and it detected my SBLive! and installed the fucked up drivers, I did something wrong.

      I quit using Linux. Problem solved.

  53. Free Software incompat. list more appropriate by paulproteus · · Score: 2

    What's more interesting than a "Linux" incompatibility is a Free Software incompatibility list. When users trade their freedom for convenience in using the non-free NVIDIA drivers, they fall into the same trap as a Windows user: they're trading their ability to share and comment on others' work. In the case of NVIDIA, we've seen the problems the lack of freedom have caused - there are technical users who would be happy to fix bugs or add features, but they are simply not allowed to.

    What matters is a list of hardware compatible with the freedom so fundamental to the development of Linux and other Free Software packages. Hardware developers should take note and distribute specifications to encourage free software drivers - and it's great for the bottom line because it all happens at no cost to them.

    (I would have checked what the site had to say about these issues if only their database server was working. I do plan to contact them as well, because I recognize that a comment on Slashdot is not enough to change the world. ;-)

    --
    |/usr/games/fortune
  54. How much compatibility do you want? by iabervon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are a lot of devices which aren't supported but don't need specific support. For example, most digital cameras aren't supported, but they act as USB storage devices, so you don't need anything special for them. I'm happily using an nVidia card at home with free drivers, and it works fine for 2D stuff, which is all I've tried doing. Devices often have extra features which aren't supported under Linux but which aren't necessarily good ideas anyway.

  55. Mirror by throbbingbrain.com · · Score: 4, Funny
  56. List of apps already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The list of apps that don't work on Linux has already been compiled here: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/vinf odb.html

  57. mod up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  58. we need this by Wouter+Van+Hemel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last week I had to return 3 webcams from 2 manufacturers. No support for linux at all; or even worse, a flat out refusal to release any form of specifics. I think it's outrageous.

    We need this list. Maybe not for the most common hardware, but there is a lot of stuff out there that has no driver support for Linux (and other opensource OSes) at all. I rather know in advance there is no way of getting it to work, or when there is only an incomplete 'experimental driver' made from sniffing usb devices.

    And then we could also reward companies that do make opensource-friendly products and drivers by buying their products, which hopefully has an impact on the other, windows-oriented companies.

  59. I think they missed one... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Bill Gates"

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  60. Re:List of Hardware with MS Windows Problems by fermion · · Score: 1
    Device: *
    Vendor: *

    That was easy. For instance I just bought a gizmo that lets me share a monitor, mouse and keyboard. It is a solid state thing that operates via USB. The XP Pro HID drivers and EnergyStar drivers are so screwed up half the time the USB keyboard and mouse don't work. Or I might get random switches. On my Mac, it works perfectly.

    I have said this many times. The Linux drivers seem to be superior to those avaiable for windows at an equal level of maturity. This was when we had to hack at the command line to get a mass storage device to work through the serial port. Or reboot to change a minor configuration.

    Now some might argue that with advancement in technolgy Linux should be better. But remember that device manufacturer design to Windows, and incoporate hacks to compensate for Windows problems. Many of these might interfere with use in standards driven OS.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  61. "Or even better" by Dwonis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Publishing specifications is far more useful than publishing drivers. Unless, of course, you don't care to see any improvement in open-source technology.

  62. Hardware needs drivers by devinjones · · Score: 2, Informative
    Hardware for MS Windows 'just works' because there is a Windows compatibilty test lab that hardware manufacturers use to prove that their binary drivers are compatible with Windows. If they don't pass the tests, they don't get to use the Windows logo.

    It is up to the hardware vendors to make sure their drivers are compatible with the linux kernel. If the vendors don't see a market need for Linux drivers, they wont spend the time & money to create them. Without drivers, the market stays small.

    The easiest way for vendors to get and maintain Linux drivers is to release the specs or source code to the kernel developers and let them maintain it! But vendors are nervous about competitors learning secrets from the driver code about the internals of the hardware, so often they dont.

    The rest of the problem is handled by Project Utopia

    Project Utopia is really an umbrella project of a bunch of smaller open-source projects. Included are the 2.6 Linux kernel, udev, HAL, and other policy pieces like gnome-volume-manager. From the end-user perspective, the idea here is plug-and-play in the non-techinical sense. When you plug in a piece of hardware, it should Just Work.
  63. electric jihad killed the server, started early. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont think its /.'d I think it's the electric jihad at work a day early.

  64. Next great idea... by Odocoileus · · Score: 1

    Now if someone would mirror the incompatability list and the compatability list in a side by side manner on one site with a search feature that would access both sites simultaneously, then one would only have to check half a zillion sites before buying some hardware.

    --
    ...
  65. Re:I like that idea! by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

    It's pretty easy to get it working.

    What distro, I'll walk you through it.

    WhiteWolf

    e-mail me at
    moornblade2gmail>google>com

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  66. haha.. by destiney · · Score: 3, Funny

    So much for all those postgres zealots screaming about how it handles load sooooo well..

    Connection to database failed
    could not connect to server: Connection refused
    Is the server running on host localhost and accepting
    TCP/IP connections on port 5432?

    while executing
    "pg_connect -conninfo $conninfo"
    (procedure "DBOpenHost" line 5)
    invoked from within
    "DBOpenHost [config db_host] [config db_user] [config db_pass] [config db_db]"
    (procedure "DBOpen" line 2)
    invoked from within
    "DBOpen"
    (procedure "DBRawQuery" line 3)
    invoked from within
    "DBRawQuery $query"
    (procedure "DBQuery" line 7)
    invoked from within
    "DBQuery "SELECT id FROM yakuwiki_page WHERE id='%s'" $id"
    (procedure "checkPageId" line 2)
    invoked from within
    "checkPageId $id"
    (procedure "show" line 4)
    invoked from within
    "show $page"
    ("show" arm line 1)
    invoked from within
    "switch -- $op {
    show {show $page}
    edit {edit $page}
    update {update $page}
    history {history $page}
    diff {pagediff $page $rev}
    upload {wikiupload ..."
    (procedure "main" line 13)
    invoked from within
    "main"
    ("uplevel" body line 1)
    invoked from within
    "uplevel main"

    1. Re:haha.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he took the server down, man...

    2. Re:haha.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much for all those postgres zealots screaming about how it handles load sooooo well..

      Compared to that little toy "database" called MySQL? I've got several heavy-load sites with a Postgres backend. It's called tuning, bitch.

    3. Re:haha.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, ha ha, what a lousy database server, completely failing to serve requests when you turn it off! MySQL, by comparison, runs forever in hyperspace by making use of the brain energy being conserved within destiney's under-used head!

      Go go MySQL!

  67. AAGGLL Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The owner of that laptop needs to send it back to HP, in warranty or not. There IS a hardware issue with the machine if all you say is true. I admin ~50 Win 2000/XP boxes and have NEVER seen a blue screen which was not hardware failure related.
    Period.

    1. Re:AAGGLL Re:*raises hand* by sigaar · · Score: 1

      Just because *you* have never seen a BSOD in Win2k/XP doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I admin about the same number of 2k/XP machines (no two are exactly the same hardware, every PC a little/lot different), and I've had a few that weren't hardware related. Filesystem corruption being one of the most frequent culprits. And this is on UPS-ed machines.

      --
      sigaar
    2. Re:AAGGLL Re:*raises hand* by sigaar · · Score: 1

      Although I do agree that this particular notebook has issues. It mostly complains about one of the ATi dlls. I have updated the drivers every time a new one comes out and it has not made much of a difference. HP however sent it back saying it's fine.

      --
      sigaar
    3. Re:AAGGLL Re:*raises hand* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HP tech support might be ignorant asses, but I am willing to bet a year's salary that it is a physical hardware issue, not a driver issue. As in bad memory or such.
      Swap out the memory.
      Swap out any miniPCI hardware.
      Swap out any PCMCIA cards.
      good luck.

  68. Need a unix desktop? Get a mac. by xtal · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've given up on desktop linux for now. Mac has hardware that works, and is a good compromise. If it says on the box it'll work, it works.

    Linux is great on servers and embedded - a lifesaver in many cases. As soon as you need to do custom hardware integration, it's not worth the headaches. I'm in the process of a very ambitious project that requries high resolution digital imaging - linux isn't an option, there are no drivers period for any of the cameras. Hello, windows. Windows even works pretty good, focused on a single task.

    For linux to get this, the best hope is devices that adhere to some sort of standard for interoperability with host PCs. I remember buying hardware and getting schematics, once upon a time, but I think those days are over.

    Another possibility is the legislate any consumer device sold on the market must publish it's communication API. This seems unworkable, but it's how cars work now - and there are lots of people who would like to change this. (OBD) It's kind of funny; when framed in terms of cars, most politicians can understand the problem - they wouldn't want to be 0wn3d by GM after shelling out big money. Why should expensive computer hardware be any different?

    --
    ..don't panic
  69. Their error message is incompatible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even compatible with HTML

    Connection to database failed
    could not connect to server: Connection refused
    Is the server running on host localhost and accepting
    TCP/IP connections on port 5432?

    while executing
    "pg_connect -conninfo $conninfo"
    (procedure "DBOpenHost" line 5)
    invoked from within
    "DBOpenHost [config db_host] [config db_user] [config db_pass] [config db_db]"
    (procedure "DBOpen" line 2)
    invoked from within
    "DBOpen"
    (procedure "DBRawQuery" line 3)
    invoked from within
    "DBRawQuery $query"
    (procedure "DBQuery" line 7)
    invoked from within
    "DBQuery "SELECT id FROM yakuwiki_page WHERE id='%s'" $id"
    (procedure "checkPageId" line 2)
    invoked from within
    "checkPageId $id"
    (procedure "show" line 4)
    invoked from within
    "show $page"
    ("show" arm line 1)
    invoked from within
    "switch -- $op {
    show {show $page}
    edit {edit $page}
    update {update $page}
    history {history $page}
    diff {pagediff $page $rev}
    upload {wikiupload ..."

    (procedure "main" line 13)
    invoked from within
    "main"
    ("uplevel" body line 1)
    invoked from within
    "uplevel main"

  70. Oh come on.. by leathered · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reason why DRI drivers work so well is because ATI didn't write them. But as you should know DRI only supports older cards such as your 9200. If you own a card that is only a little newer, then you are forced to use ATI's proprietry drivers. These, as everyone seems to know except yourself, suck ass. My 9600Pro gets a least 30% less fps in games than in Windows, not to mention the numerous glitches I encounter.

    If you run Linux, you run Nvidia, it's as simple as that.

    --
    For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    1. Re:Oh come on.. by MartinG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know about 20 linux users. Probably two of them use nvidia hardware.

      For some of us, free software matters and closed drivers are not an options. For some others, closed drivers are okay, but not much good when you're on ppc and the drivers are x86 only.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    2. Re:Oh come on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is late to the discussion, but this is a serious question on the whole ATI/NVidia driver situation. One of the best things about Linux, in my opinion, is that you never have to worry about support for your hardware going away because the source is available. What happens when/if NVidia dies and their drivers are no longer updated to keep pace with kernel development?

    3. Re:Oh come on.. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      really? I have not met a single linux ATI user (not a serious one anyway. My brother's best friend tried installing linux on an ATI computer but gave up after shoddy UT gameplay.)

    4. Re:Oh come on.. by Joe+MacDonald · · Score: 1
      For some of us, free software matters and closed drivers are not an options. For some others, closed drivers are okay, but not much good when you're on ppc and the drivers are x86 only.
      Unless you're saying ATI's proprietary drivers are open source, then the above statement is bordering on being a non sequitur. The assertion was that new nVidia hardware performs quite well in Linux while new ATI hardware does not. Both require (as far as I know) closed source drivers. The fact that older ATI hardware performed acceptably well with DRI is nice, but irrelevant since that hardware is now sitting at the bottom of the video card lists for most computer stores. Meaning that in just a few months the odds are good you won't be able to buy one of these new.
      --
      -Joe
    5. Re:Oh come on.. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      there are open source 3d capable drivers available for older ati video cards. Only the newer ATI cards have closed source drivers. I think it has somethign to do with when ATI l;eft the technoligy behind and moved onto the newest gratest chips or something.

      Anyways, the open souce Nvidia driver doesn't do 3d outside frame buffer and glx will crawl. The open source ATI driver (dri if i recall corectly) will do 3d quite well. I have always used ATI cards untill recently for this reason. Now I Tend to go with Nvidia based cards because the driver install seems a little less painfull to me.

      I have noticed that for the certain ATI cards that have both an open source and proprietary driver, The ATI suplied proprietary driver does give better performance.

  71. one caveat by perlchild · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a suggestion, if you're going to encourage people to make binary-only drivers, make a list of GOOD ones too.
    Some of those binary-only drivers attempt to lock you onto specific kernel versions, otherwise refuse to work in normal usability conditions or cause otherwise troublesome behaviour. I also know at least once "hardware compatiblity list" where hardware is listed as compatible, even if it doesn't perform the function you bought the hardware in the first place, provided it doesn't crash the system. Now normally this wouldn't be a problem, but the storage controller in question performs as an ide controller "without its special storage magic". People see the device name on the compatibility and expect the magic and expect it to work with the full magic, yet it's not "compatible".

    If we are going to pressure people into making things, let's make sure they make "good" things.

  72. Re:My idea is uneducated and OFFTOPIC by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

    While I recognize the problem you speak of, I disagree with your example. The drivers from nVidia require a little bit of work to install, but have been working at least for me on about any linux distro that I tried (as well as on FreeBSD, even on the at that moment explicitly non supported development version)
    An issue with Linux may be your kernel configuration tho.

    The way nVidia solves this is about the only way to get binary drivers that do work more or less independent of what release of the OS you use.

    You do have to get the drivers with the module sources tho, getting a pre-packaged binary for your distibution did not ever get me usefull results.

  73. Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthless by Gigantic1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    So...in order to satisfactorily run Linux on the Desktop, it's advisable to consult "Incompatibility Lists" which are hosted on sites so lame that they can't even handle substantial traffic: like the Linux-related site referenced in this posting.

    Sure! Great! Hey...like I have loads of time to waste trying to find drivers! And Linux Geeks actually wonder why Linux is not being accepted on the Desktop as fast as they would like?

    Linux on the Desktop? No Thanks! For the desktop, I'll stick with Windows 2000: it actually works with common hardware.

    Linux on the Desktop: it's free if your time is worthless.

    Just whoring Bad Karma!

  74. Excellent point, is it solvable? by khasim · · Score: 1

    There was an old site once, "The Linux Hardware Database" I believe (before they were bought by ZDnet and killed), that listed hardware that people had that worked with Linux.

    I think the MOST USEFUL database would combine the "compatible" databases with the "incompatible" databases AND incorporate your point about "I couldn't get x to work".

    ONE site that listed the hardware and what steps people had to go through to get it to work on what platforms. Such as:

    "works automatically on stock install of SuSE 9.0"
    or
    "must download and compile beta driver for Fedora from www.xxx.yyy"
    or
    "slip-streamed chipset changes - none of the existing drivers work"
    and so forth.

    I was submitting info the the Linux Hardware Database and making sure that I gave enough information for someone to identify which specific version of the NIC they had. That was one of the cases where the make/model of the NIC didn't change, but the entire chipset did so it needed entirely different drivers.

  75. The wayback machine is your friend. by khasim · · Score: 1

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://lhd.zdnet.com

    Suh-weet!

  76. Not just Linux by tiger99 · · Score: 1
    As you mention cameras, it is worth noting that they present the fewest problems, since generally they use a CF card or some other type of memory card, which contains a DOS file system and can be read in any USB card reader. Also, most that I have seen, although they do not claim Linux compatability, do in fact work as USB storage devices if you simply plug in the USB lead. SuSE handles this quite well, and I think other distros do also.

    Neither of my cameras has the slightest pretensions of Linux compatability, both work!

    There might be a possible difficulty if you use the manufacturer's "raw" file format, but that will need a file conversion utility, not a driver, maybe a new Gimp plug-in. But as most people use jpegs most of the time, and some cameras will use tiff if needed, it does not seem to be a major problem. But some people will know otherwise, if so, write it up and publish. That is what this new site is for, after all.

    Scanners sadly are another ball game altogether, despite conceptually resembling cameras..... The scanner equivalent of the Winmodem or GDI printer is the most hopeless of course, and like the modem and printer is best avoided even for Windoze users, as the tiny cost saving is far outweighed by the performance penalty.

  77. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least now we have another entry for the Slashdot Incompatibility List.

  78. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... Canon by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine the Jesuit geeks mounting canon... /mnt/canon

    and realizing they've got a blessed machine...

    it's been "canon"ized.

    DOH!

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  79. Re:Difficult to maintain? taking laptop to store.. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    This will only work until the anti-competive from redmond put the word out to all stores and device manufacturers to NOT let us test the hardware...

    Ah, I can see anti-competitive suits being filed...

    David Syes

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  80. Re:Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patching Windows is free if your time is worthless
    Updating Viuses is free if your time is worthless
    Removing sypware is free if your time is worthless

    etc...

    So how much does Windows cost you in your precious time?

  81. Hahaha, open drivers by TwistedSpring · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many hardware manufacturers will simply not provide open source drivers for their products, mainly for marketing reasons. Imagine you're a video card manufacturer. You realise people are overclocking your previous line of cards instead of buying the new faster range of cards. So you try to disable overclocking in the driver (presumably by making the driver reclock the card to the correct frequencies, thus undoing the work of any overclocking software). If you release open source drivers, it'd be pretty easy for hacked drivers to be released that allow people to overclock, even though you dont want them to.

    I think the precise reason that OEMs are releasing closed source drivers for Linux is so that they can get in before someone tries to reverse engineer their hardware and pass off some shoddy drivers that cast their hardware or their development team in a bad light. They want to be sure that people use the original drivers for Linux that they support, not some crazy third party ones. They certainly do not want support requests about drivers that they didn't even develop. Releasing open source drivers creates a lot of questions. How do you distribute the drivers? If someone out there fixes bugs in your driver, what's the procedure for implementing these fixes into the main distribution? What legal rights does anyone who adds fixes to the driver have if their fixes are implemented into the main distribution? Do you pay them or do you just thank them? Will you lay off your own developers once you notice that the community is developing the drivers and not you? Will you become lethargic in your testing of new drivers when you realise that you can release shoddy open source code quickly, and the community will fix it for you?

    From an OEM's perspective, open sourcing drivers is a pain in the ass. It sounds like it'd make the development team feel less secure in their jobs (if there's a bunch of people out there that will do their job for free, why are they still employed?) and less determined to write good code when they can pass the buck to an external community.

    You hit a serious problem when you're a professional company earning money from selling hardware, and then outsource one sector of your company to the community. People like Intel have done this, but have dissociated the Intel brand from the open source project as much as possible and turned it into a kind of "novelty" project like "this is what our guys work on when they go home in the evening!". I think that to a lot of companies, open source is merely a device used to improve the company image, to make them seem more forward thinking and relaxed, and get them some damn good press and the lifelong devotion of a great deal of short-sighted nerds ("These guys make things open source, so I'll buy their products because I support open source, even though they're moneygrabbing assholes in everything else that they do").

    The only drivers regular profit-making companies can support are closed source drivers developed in-house. As soon as you implement the code of other people or allow some random guy you don't know access to your CVS to do a few check-ins, you cannot claim to offer any support for the product whatsoever, because people who have worked on it are not your employees and you are not responsible for anything they do, and are consequently no longer responsible for work done on your own driver, which you would like to be able to legally own, support, endorse and distribute with your product as your own (unless you claim responsibility for all work done on the driver by third parties, which would be incredibly foolish). There are also various laws concerning how companies can may make use of contributions from third parties, and what rights anyone who contributes to a company has. Laws concerning competition may also apply here - once the community develops your driver and effectively does work for free that you'd normally pay people to do, isn't that a seriously unfair advantage? Can you give an example of any company that ha

    1. Re:Hahaha, open drivers by foonf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You realise people are overclocking your previous line of cards instead of buying the new faster range of cards. So you try to disable overclocking in the driver (presumably by making the driver reclock the card to the correct frequencies, thus undoing the work of any overclocking software). If you release open source drivers, it'd be pretty easy for hacked drivers to be released that allow people to overclock, even though you dont want them to.

      The number of people who overclock their hardware is probably far below even the number of linux users at this point. I have never seen any evidence it has impacted sales of high-end products. The main concern CPU manufacturers have with overclocking is remarking, where an overclockable slower chip is relabled by a third party as a faster chip and then resold. That is both illegal and damaging to the company's reputation (because the remarked chips are going to be, on average, less reliable) so they take measures to prevent it. Thats not a problem with video cards since the only practical means to overclock them is via software.

      I think the precise reason that OEMs are releasing closed source drivers for Linux is so that they can get in before someone tries to reverse engineer their hardware and pass off some shoddy drivers that cast their hardware or their development team in a bad light.

      This is partly true, but it also represents a valid response to customer demand: They have customers who want to use their products under Linux, and they are providing semi-official drivers in the only legal way they can (see below).

      The only drivers regular profit-making companies can support are closed source drivers developed in-house. As soon as you implement the code of other people or allow some random guy you don't know access to your CVS to do a few check-ins, you cannot claim to offer any support for the product whatsoever, because people who have worked on it are not your employees and you are not responsible for anything they do, and are consequently no longer responsible for work done on your own driver, which you would like to be able to legally own, support, endorse and distribute with your product as your own

      This isn't a big deal really. You can require third parties to contribute code under a license giving you either outright ownership or very broad redistribution rights, and carefully control outside code contributions (see Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc.); there is no reason that model can't be applied to drivers. There are two other main reason that drivers are not released as open-source: First, often times the driver contains source code which the manufacturer licensed from a third party and has no right to redistribute (this is the case with NVIDIA). Second, the driver can contain some highly proprietary intellectual property, possibly representing most of the value of the product (this is the case with most software modems). There is no way around the first case unless the manufacturer wants to completely rewrite their existing driver, and no way at all around the second.

      What is most discouraging, generally, is not that hardware companies don't open-source their drivers; the driver is the hardware company's property and if they don't want to port it to Linux or release source for it, that is their right. The problem is when vendors won't even release specifications to their hardware to open-source developers. There are people who are willing to sign all sorts of restrictive NDAs to get access to specifications and write open-source drivers for hardware; a hardware company does not have to release the full specifications to be released to the public, only allow the final driver to be released as open source. In the past this was how most drivers for Linux were written, but, especially graphics card companies, are providing much less access than they were 5 years ago, even as more companies are paying lip service to Linux support.

      --

      "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
    2. Re:Hahaha, open drivers by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "Imagine you're a video card manufacturer. You realise people are overclocking your previous line of cards instead of buying the new faster range of cards."

      You mean like NVIDIA? They make it really hard to overclock. So hard, in fact, that it's built right into the drivers - automated.reunone the less.

  82. Of course it's not there by DavidNWelton · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because I just created the site a few days ago. It should not be on slashdot.

    I hope it will work, because people will add their hardware there, and it will show up with google. I also plan to add things myself as I see them.

    If you want a more informative article than slashdot, look at kerneltrap, where I made the mistake of linking to the thing in a comment:-/

    http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3695

  83. I second DKMS by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    It's probably the neatest thing Dell's done for the linux community, and yet very few people know about it.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  84. What you need is a HAL, and maybe a VM by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1



    1) A set of API calls to do discrete things with hardware (list buses, get interrupt information, perform DMA, twiddle registers mapped to memory, talk to a sysfs interface for providing control data to userspace)
    This API should be fixed, with a few extension points which would leave the original API as-is.

    2) A small virtual machine (ala OpenFirmware and Forth/F-Code) that can manipulate this API and do simple kernel memory management tasks, math, etc. and implement control structures. This "module" would load, and then you could send bytecode drivers to a device that would start a virtual machine implementing the logic in the bytecode.

    Driver writers could target the bytecode (maybe using a gcc-backend?). It would be architecture independant.

    NVidia would write drivers conforming to part 1. Scanner, modem, printer manufacturers (less performance critical) could aim for part 2.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  85. Re:I like that idea! by Nasarius · · Score: 1

    Works great for me too. I use Gentoo with the latest NVIDIA binary driver and a 2.6 kernel. RTCW runs beautifully at 1280x1024.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
  86. How well that link works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rob Malda writes: "The slashdot.org site is a perl project that attempts to find the neat bits of geeky news rather than what is completely boring. With the Perl code, it is possible to post stories and alternative comments so as to push news makers to make good news, smart decisions, or, even better, open-souce flamefests."

  87. Start an alternate area for Cisco/Linksys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been complaining to Linksys and now Cisco, over their routers. Wired, befsr41, vpn 2 client, vpn multi, and other versions. According to them, you need windows to upgrade their firmware.

    So when a vulnerability comes out (there are vulnerabilities for the model above, and other versions), I, and other users with Linux only or mixed Linux/Mac have to shut down a computer temporarily, install an old version of Windows (98), patch the router, then overwrite the install with Linux again so I can herd the computer back into the flock, and back into production.

    If Cisco/Linksys can put in permanent, non-removable back doors into their routers for the spooks, then they can at least give a little more than a rat's ass of help to their customers. Their consideration for their customers (or lack thereof) shows in the sudden dropoff of firmware fixes/revisions after Cisco bought out Linksys. They went from monthly more frequent fixes and releases, to many months/close to a year between.

    Won't matter much for me, since I currently have some test boxes where I'm giving myself a severe lesson in iptables, combined with sarge getting attention from the security team now, and sarge about to enter stable so I can auto update nightly, so I won't need the Linksys boxes for anymore. Iptables will take care of the firewalling, and up-to-date packages and minimal services (and some other "hardening") will take care of the other end.

    So I won't need your routers anymore, Linksys/Cisco, solely because of your lack of respect for your non-windows on every lan clients. Had you enabled Linux users to patch the routers, and made the info known on your web site where it is easy to see, I would have stuck with your routers, rather than use Linux for filtering and nat. I'd prefer to use the 8w-14w (iirc) routers you sell, rather than the 90w+ of the upcoming AMD processors at idle (don't even mention Intel which is close to double at any point). In the long term, the nat appliances come out ahead in electrical consumption costs, but those stats are pissed on by the fact that one has to keep a windows computer running or on hand, just to patch a Linksys/Cisco router.

    Linux is arguably #2 in server revenue now, with a 50%+ growth rate (not counting free downloads). So if not this year, then next year. And in lans, there are a high percentage of Linux desktops that it is inexcusable for Linksys/Cisco to fail to provide a solution to non-windows users for patching your routers.

    All the executable appears to be/do is to upload the firmware, telnet style, to the router, similar to telnetting into a zyxel router (much higher quality btw) and get/putting the firmware. Except it is shrouded and covered as an executable that only runs on windows according to your website.

    Stop the bullshit Cisco/Linksys. Support the clients that purchase your products. All of them. Post the info, issue a patch if necessary to enable Linux firmware upgrades, do whatever has to be done, and get it over with.

    If HP can get their multi-function printers to support Linux, then you can get your firmware updates to work with more than just windows.

    1. Re:Start an alternate area for Cisco/Linksys by Trejkaz · · Score: 2

      You know what, though, the Linksys router I bought allowed you to upgrade the firmware via the web interface. And via TFTP from Linux, too. Maybe you just bought the wrong router. ;-)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  88. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... Canon by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

    Yeah, except Canon doesn't support USB mass storage, so they will never get it mounted.

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  89. No they shouldn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a Hardware guide. Expect it to end up on Votes for deletion soon.

    And another thing, Slashdotters are abusing Wikipedia as a tool in nerd erotica in general, just look around. There is going to be some REAL cracking down soon.

  90. Slashdot is gay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all you people on slashdot are a bunch of fucken nerds who do nothing but talk about crap like linux and those stupid gay geeky things!

    dumbasses!

    you all need lives!

    and who needs linux anyway, windows is better!

    Windows is better than linux!

    ya it is

    Windows is better than linux!

    bill gates is cool

    Windows is better than linux!

    you are nerds

    Windows is better than linux!

    nobody used linux

    Windows is better than linux!

    what practicle use does linux have

    Windows is better than linux!

    i never use linux

    Windows is better than linux!

    yup

    Windows is better than linux!

    i have windows xp media center edition on my Dell

    Windows is better than linux!

    fucken dorks

    Windows is better than linux!

  91. linux Sucks All you linux user smell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you are all dumb hippies.

    Stop talking about linux run BSD.

    I rather run windows then linux.

    Thank you

  92. Screw getting the NVidia to work... by rk · · Score: 1

    That's easy! Tell me how the hell you got NWN to work on Linux. I still haven't figured that shit out.

    1. Re:Screw getting the NVidia to work... by Lispy · · Score: 1

      I used this installer.

      All the expansions can simply be decompressed into your main NWN-folder. Thats it. Where did you get stuck?

  93. MOD PARENT UP by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


    Yes it's been said before, but it apparently needs to be said over and over and over until it's understood! D'OH!!!

    The manufacturers of USB keychain devices seem to understand this, why is it so many other manufacturers of USB devices don't? Don't they understand why USB keychains have become so hugely popular?

    Fucking STANDARDS, people! Follow them and you're guaranteed a long lifetime for your product, don't follow them and you are guaranteed that as soon as something better or another OS version comes out you're spending more money making your proprietary device work with it rather than just changing the hardware and staying with the software specs you already built it to!

    I just don't get it. Why spend all the $ deving and re-devving a proprietary interface when you can use existing specs and have your product to market faster, cheaper, and with a longer lifetime? Good Bog, the old management techniques from the High Priest age of computers just won't die off, will they? Auuuuuggghh

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because its harder to reverse engineer and modify yourself or third party (competitor) the device and replicate the service wtih a few more bells and whistles and half the price, make it proprietary and you can charge as much as you can get suckers to pay.

      its all about the $$$ duh! whats the margin on most open standard products? hell, i actually plan to buy a neato little standards based USB keyfob simply because I can get one that will fit in my wallet for $30 that hold 512 MB, dont have any specail plans, just for that price i must have 1.

  94. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... Canon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    • Yeah, except Canon doesn't support USB mass storage, so they will never get it mounted.

    Well, you can still get the pictures out, because gphoto2 understands whichever protocol the canon digital cameras speak.

  95. STREAMS is less than ideal by kbahey · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Solaris has one. Well, heck, I hear the TLI/STREAMs interface is vile, but it was one of the two standard driver models that was easy to write. However, it had very poor performance.

    Ah. STREAMS. Yes.

    I recall a case from some 8 years ago on UNIX System V Release 4, which is a direct parent of Solaris. This problem is not really solely STREAMS, but when its limitations is combined with poor programming, that is the result.

    A transaction processing application was written in a way that is less than optimal. Every user had one process allocated to them handling the traffic from the terminal (via front end processors multiplexing connections from X.25 to TCP/IP), and then the transaction was placed on a queue. The response was taken by the terminal process from a queue, and sent to the user.

    The goal was to support 1200 simultaneous logged in active users.

    Everytime we loaded the system with 800 users, we could not exceed that, and the system ran out of a certain resource (memory? Don't remember.)

    Part of the code was in C, and the programmer who wrote it decided to get each character from the front end processor using getchar(), and send it using putchar().

    After a few agonizing nights, and calls to support, we found out that each character was sent internally in a STREAMS header that was 512 bytes long. So, with 800 simulater users firing transactions consisting of a few hundred characters each, you can see that there were lots of 512 byte messages going on in the kernel.

    The solution was simple: do the data receive/send in chunks. Problem solved. A story from the trenches, because it hit a nerve.

    Very similar to running out of GDI on Win9X.

  96. Better Yet... by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1
    How about a database of "things that work with Linux without problems"

    Such a list will reward those who have written in specific drivers for the Distros and make the people looking for stuff to run with Linux happier (as well as help quell they naysayers who always gripe that they cant find some notebook or something that's Linux compatible.

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    1. Re:Better Yet... by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      That was the old approach.
      It does not really work because people will check the list to conclude that something will NOT work, and there is little incentive to add something that works to a database. Remember you are dependent on voluntary action by someone who owns te hardware and can judge if "it works".

      When a devide does NOT work, and you have tried to find drivers and contact the manufacturer, you may be more likely to have found the "incompatability list" in the process, and add your device to that.

  97. Re:Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet Windows is only $X00 if your time is worthless. I tell you what, though... why is it that so many devices on Windows need extra drivers installed, yet every driver I've ever needed for any device in the past other than one, was built into the kernel source? I'd love to see Windows approach that level of hardware support. :-)

  98. We want just one thing: specifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    to push hardware manufacturers to make good binary drivers, publish specifications, or even better, publish open drivers.

    Specifications are the best, because they enable people to write drivers that can configure themselves to a range of devices. So you have maybe 5 drivers for some device type instead of 15.

    Before Microsoft started making agreements with hardware manufacturers, it was always standard practice to publish specs with every add-in card or device.

  99. Are you SURE it's not supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The numbers of unsupported hardware are huge. I just tried to add my digital camera (Kodak DX4530)

    Are you sure it's unsupported? Most digital cameras have a USB port. So what you do is (as root):

    • mkdir /mnt/camera
    • modprobe usb-storage
    • ... plug in your camera to the USB port, turn it on
    • mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/camera
    The device might not be sda1, you need to do some checking. But at the end, just look in the /mnt/camera directory and (usually a few subdirectories down) you'll find your pictures.
  100. Ha - seems the site is incompatible with itself since right now it's reporting some kind of SQL error :)

  101. Re:electric jihad killed the server, started early by minus9 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Dave Barry would agree that "The Electric Jihad" would be an excellent name for a rock band.

  102. Re:Video cards (ATI Linux drivers petition) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    in addition to creating an entry to the mentioned wiki page, ATI and OEM-ATI owners might sign the following petition directed to ATI Technologies:

    ATI Petition for Adequate Drivers in Linux
    http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/

    And yes, signatures are being added to this petition list in a very fast pace :-)

    Best regards,

    Walter.

  103. ATI Radeon 9200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ATI Radeon 9200 might be the best card for OpenSource use. I bought myself a Apple iBook laptop because of the ATI Radeon 9200 GPU.
    The only thing I didn't buy was the WLAN card for the iBook. I think it is a unsuported Broadcom (crap) WLAN chip.
    The iBook 12" with ATI Radeon 9200 is a nice laptop with Linux.
    Looking forward to try the new XOrg X11 Server Release 6.8 with my ATI Radeon 9200.
    http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/soapbox/articl e.php?articleID=5

  104. Re:Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthl by Gigantic1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >>>>>>>

    Compared to Linux? Hardly anything.

    Hey...my life, and work, is not centered on being a computer geek: I need something that works and is compatible. Linux just doesn't cut it on the compatibility side.

    See...with Linux on the Desktop, it always something, isn't it? I mean, something that prevents you from hooking up that Digital Camera, enjoying that Sound Card or getting the Video Card to work at it's spec'd resolutions.

    And...worst yet, the dearth of decent Linux applications is areal "Pain in the Arse". Sure...there's lot's of free Apps out there for Linux - they just also happen to be buggy, clunky and have poor user interfaces.

    Like I said: Desktop Linux is free if your time is worthless.

  105. Re:Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthl by Gigantic1 · · Score: 1

    >>>>

    Tell you what, when you Desktop Linux guys get your sound cards, printers, digital cams, and video cards working with Linux as easy as you can with Windows, then I'll listen. Of course, seeing that Linux is fragmented into about 5000 different versions, I won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

    Until then, I'll use my Windows-based PC as a tool while you sit farting around all day trying to make Linux actually work.

    BTW, I picked up my Windows 2000 install for $7 dollars in the Phillipines and got MS Office thrown in for Free. Who says Windows is expensive? I mean, that's a lot cheaper than you can get a distro on CD from Redhat!

  106. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on. All the hardware manufacturers need to do is publish specs for their gear. As they all used to do, before Microsoft began persuading them to sign restrictive agreements.

  107. PARENT IS A TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did this troll get modded up to "3 Insightful"?

    1. Re:PARENT IS A TROLL by TwistedSpring · · Score: 0

      Because you touch yourself in bed.

  108. Some hardware doesnt work with windows by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Try getting a SUN PCI 10/100 ethernet card or quad ethernet card working with windows.. It wont, it works perfectly with linux tho and freebsd definately supports the chipset on sparc so it *should* work on other architectures too.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  109. Targeted advertising by pk2000 · · Score: 1

    There's a Google add on the page that lists incompatible WiFi devices and it is advertising one of the items on the list.

  110. Black or White should not be exclusive by POPE+Mad+Mitch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sites like this which only list what doesnt work, and other such sites that only list what does work, all suffer from the same problem: you cant distinguish unknown from does/doesnt work.

    The printer people (linuxprinting.org) have the right idea, the site lists every printer thats known, and wether it does, or doesnt work, how well, and why.

    This way you can more easily tell the difference between 'my device is too new, nobodies tried yet' and 'the manufacturers a pest, itll never work' and the more common 'theres half a driver that mostly works, give it a go or wait a bit'

    If the same philosophy was applied to all devices it would be a really useful resource

  111. Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported... Canon by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

    But you can't mount it, see? Mount? /mnt/canon?

    kids these days, never reading the parent post...

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  112. Re:Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthl by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

    $7 + $2000 for trip to Phillipines is a pretty bloody expensive operating system

  113. /mnt/fuji was Re:The Kodak DX4530 *IS* supported.. by aonaran · · Score: 1

    ...and here i've been calling mine /mnt/camera all this time and missing out on the humour. :(

  114. Help me help them... by maddog2o_2o · · Score: 1

    I strongly suspect that my motherboard doesn't work under a 2.6 kernel. Anything with 2.4 works fine, try a 2.6 version and it all goes to heck... won't boot up at all after selecting any 2.6 option in a LILO menu.

    So I decide to be a good citizen and report this (to Mandrake originally - although there is surely a better, more general place to raise this issue) but after opening the box I can't find a make or model anywhere on the motherboard. Normally I'd expect to see it printed somewhere but I guess this cheap temporary box is even cheaper than I'd thought.

    Is there a way to get a motherboard id if it's not printed on it? I'd suspect a utility to do this already exists if it's at all possible but damned if my searching can find it.

    Anyone else see a 'break' at the 2.4/2.6 boundary?

    Kevin

  115. Upgrade via Javascript browser? by gfecyk · · Score: 1

    When I had to upgrade a Linksys router, I ended up doing it through IE rather than their supplied Windows applet. There was a prompt for a filename (apparently you can still HTTP POST entire files) and after submitting a binary image, the router happily updated its own firmware.

    I don't remember if it needed javascript or not, but I remember having to add the router's private IP to Trusted Sites to make some of its functionality work (mostly because Scripting was disabled in the Internet zone, but hey.) If all it needs is javascript to do a firmware update via a browser, surely it would work with Opera or Mozilla on Linux.

    --
    Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
  116. Re:ACPI craps on XP sometimes too by gfecyk · · Score: 1

    "ACPI is an open standard, but unfortunately, vendors' closed source BIOS implementations for the last few years are written against the Microsoft ACPI parser, bugs and all."

    Actually, I've had to work with some cheap machines whose ACPI BIOSes caused too many error records to appear on XP SP1's Event Log. Things like: "This register is not responding correctly," etc, and then XP disables that particular functionality (ie: a "suspend" button). And no firmware updates were available or they failed just as badly.

    At least XP manages to deal with it. By comparison, Win2K bluescreens on the same machine if I try to use an ACPI HAL - I have to force-select a Standard PC HAL on installation to use the thing. Win98 works, but only because of the reasons you described.

    --
    Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
  117. Re:Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of idiot would pay anything for an OS? Even $7 is too much for that piece of shit. And christ, my sound card, printer, camera and video cards all worked with Linux out of the box.

    Guess what: my Bluetooth card worked out of the box too... but not on Windows.

    Until Windows gets up to scratch with hardware support, I'll continue using Linux while all you idiots sit farting around all day trying to make Windows actually work.

  118. Re:Desktop Linux: it's free if your time is worthl by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    So tell me, how do you get a piece of hardware to work on Windows when it doesn't plug and play? It would be neat to get Windows to recognise my PS/2 mouse, since it currently can't.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!