Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (6210 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] [going OT] was: SUSE 9.3 to 10.0 GR upgrade - flawless!
- From: Steve Graegert <graegerts@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:37:08 +0200
- Message-id: <6a00c8d50510111037p43407ed6ie43d15bbb72693d2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 10/8/05, Kevin Donnelly <kevin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday 08 October 2005 11:05, Kevanf1 wrote:
> > IF THE HARDWARE YOU ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH
> > LINUX DON'T BUY IT AND LET THE MANUFACTURER KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION!
>
> I sometimes think it would be nice to have a blacklist site for hardware
> manufacturers. You would set up a group of Linux users, and send a standard
> letter/email to whatever hardware manufacturers you could think of
This is what the BSD people do for years with great success as the
latest example (Adaptec) has shown.
> basically asking:
> - does your product a, b, c currently run on Linux?
> - if so:
> (a) is there a Linux page on your website giving information on how to do
> this?
> (b) do you advertise Linux support on your website, packaging and adverts?
> - if not:
> (a) do you plan to support Linux in the future?
> (b) if so, within what likely timescale?
>
> The responses would be archived on the site, and the various manufacturers
> graded in terms of how many of their products are built with Linux in mind,
> and how well they communicate that fact in terms of packaging (this is
> important in terms of raising Linux' profile).
Agree. Would also like to contribute to the effort.
> The aim would be to persuade
> Linux users to strike manufacturers with a poor rating completely off their
> "consider" list for *any* consumer/IT product - the number of Linux users is
> now such that this might actually have some effect - and buy stuff made by
> "platinum" or "gold" Linux supporters only.
It's always easy to criticize hardware vendors and to demand support
for product X, Y or Z and operating system A, B and C. I fully
understand the users' POV but I also know the other side. It takes a
large amount of resources to support more and more operating systems
(open source and commercial). Every time a new OS is to be added to
the portfolio, a vendor could hire new staff with the proper knowledge
or train the current staff. In either way, it costs a lot of money
and the consumer market is very unpredictable.
> Note that this is a different emphasis from existing sites like Linux
> Hardware. The aim there is to check whether something works before you, the
> consumer, buy it, with the onus being on you. The aim of the blacklist site
> would be to take that a step farther back, so that manufacturers have to
> start thinking about doing the checking themselves (ie factoring in Linux
> support on the drawing board).
Would have no effect. A passive effort does not change anything.
> This also says nothing about whether or not the manufacturers provide specs
> (although ratings could be improved if this were the case). Being
> "Linux-friendly" goes further than this - if they write drivers for Windows,
> they should do the same for Linux, and this might in turn bring pressure to
> bear for general adherence to standards. (There is a whole other question
> about whether free/open drivers should be available as a matter of principle,
> but I take the pragmatic view that if a manufacturer feels unable to assist
> their development, then that puts an even greater onus on them to provide
> Linux drivers themselves. Free/open drivers are then a step beyond that.)
Now, social aspects are mixed with economical aspects. A conflict we
are currently facing within the governing organizations of the
Internet (ISOC, IETF, etc.) and leading open source initiatives.
> An organised campaign like this might be more effective in publicity terms
> than individual letters to manufacturers, especially when those manufacturers
> are being compared on a grid.
Don't think so. As stated above, the BSD communities has made major
progress over the yeas by submitting individual inquiries about
drivers for certain products on a regular basis. The results could
then be made public to encourage other users to follow.
Supporting non-commercial OSes is a challenge for every vendor
(hardware and software) since, revenue is not predictable and support
from the communities must be managed carefully. My employer has the
same problem.
\Steve
> On Saturday 08 October 2005 11:05, Kevanf1 wrote:
> > IF THE HARDWARE YOU ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH
> > LINUX DON'T BUY IT AND LET THE MANUFACTURER KNOW ABOUT YOUR DECISION!
>
> I sometimes think it would be nice to have a blacklist site for hardware
> manufacturers. You would set up a group of Linux users, and send a standard
> letter/email to whatever hardware manufacturers you could think of
This is what the BSD people do for years with great success as the
latest example (Adaptec) has shown.
> basically asking:
> - does your product a, b, c currently run on Linux?
> - if so:
> (a) is there a Linux page on your website giving information on how to do
> this?
> (b) do you advertise Linux support on your website, packaging and adverts?
> - if not:
> (a) do you plan to support Linux in the future?
> (b) if so, within what likely timescale?
>
> The responses would be archived on the site, and the various manufacturers
> graded in terms of how many of their products are built with Linux in mind,
> and how well they communicate that fact in terms of packaging (this is
> important in terms of raising Linux' profile).
Agree. Would also like to contribute to the effort.
> The aim would be to persuade
> Linux users to strike manufacturers with a poor rating completely off their
> "consider" list for *any* consumer/IT product - the number of Linux users is
> now such that this might actually have some effect - and buy stuff made by
> "platinum" or "gold" Linux supporters only.
It's always easy to criticize hardware vendors and to demand support
for product X, Y or Z and operating system A, B and C. I fully
understand the users' POV but I also know the other side. It takes a
large amount of resources to support more and more operating systems
(open source and commercial). Every time a new OS is to be added to
the portfolio, a vendor could hire new staff with the proper knowledge
or train the current staff. In either way, it costs a lot of money
and the consumer market is very unpredictable.
> Note that this is a different emphasis from existing sites like Linux
> Hardware. The aim there is to check whether something works before you, the
> consumer, buy it, with the onus being on you. The aim of the blacklist site
> would be to take that a step farther back, so that manufacturers have to
> start thinking about doing the checking themselves (ie factoring in Linux
> support on the drawing board).
Would have no effect. A passive effort does not change anything.
> This also says nothing about whether or not the manufacturers provide specs
> (although ratings could be improved if this were the case). Being
> "Linux-friendly" goes further than this - if they write drivers for Windows,
> they should do the same for Linux, and this might in turn bring pressure to
> bear for general adherence to standards. (There is a whole other question
> about whether free/open drivers should be available as a matter of principle,
> but I take the pragmatic view that if a manufacturer feels unable to assist
> their development, then that puts an even greater onus on them to provide
> Linux drivers themselves. Free/open drivers are then a step beyond that.)
Now, social aspects are mixed with economical aspects. A conflict we
are currently facing within the governing organizations of the
Internet (ISOC, IETF, etc.) and leading open source initiatives.
> An organised campaign like this might be more effective in publicity terms
> than individual letters to manufacturers, especially when those manufacturers
> are being compared on a grid.
Don't think so. As stated above, the BSD communities has made major
progress over the yeas by submitting individual inquiries about
drivers for certain products on a regular basis. The results could
then be made public to encourage other users to follow.
Supporting non-commercial OSes is a challenge for every vendor
(hardware and software) since, revenue is not predictable and support
from the communities must be managed carefully. My employer has the
same problem.
\Steve
| < Previous | Next > |