Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3605 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] And another 10.1 showstopper
- From: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:13:01 -0400
- Message-id: <1149250381.23886.152.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 12:14 +0100, Kevanf1 wrote:
> This is exactly what I do :-) I made the mistake of purchasing a
> Canon LiDE 50 scanner a couple of years ago. At that time I was 100%
> Microsoft (I had dallied with Linux for years but never had a fully
> productive system). Had I been using Linux properly at the time I
> would not have purchased this particular scanner and I have written
> and told Canon this. I have repeatedly badgered them into providing
> Linux drivers for all their products. However, it needs everyone to
> do this.
Unfortunately, they are catering to 90+% of superstore consumers.
That means cost is supreme. That also means they want the hardware to
work only 1 PC cycle (system, OS, software and other peripherals) --
i.e., 3 or less years (typical US business GAAP depreciation cycle).
So instead of building capable hardware, they use minimal hardware with
software. And that means they license the software from a 3rd party
that sells the same software to countless other companies. Software
that will be useful for only 1 Windows version.
Which means they don't own the IP. Which means they can't sell it. And
they don't care, because it costs them peanuts per unit, but just works
for them -- which sells the product to 90+% of superstore consumers.
Even HP licenses many things from 3rd parties, and can't always open
source support. It has the most support of any major vendor -- short of
800lbs. Intel who forces many to sell only their hardware (and its IP)
-- but even it is missing lots of support from any of its peripherals.
> Nowadays I always do my research into hardware. If it does not run
> under Linux I don't buy it and I let the manufacturer know that they
> have lost a sale. Again, I hope I am not a lone voice shouting into
> the wind.
Unfortunately, we're the overwhelming minority. We're not like 90+% of
superstore consumers. We want hardware that not only works on Linux,
but works on multiple Windows versions.
The superstore model is designed to cater to consumers who believe
anytime they upgrade their PC, OS, software or peripherals, they have to
buy _all_ 4. Again, this is about every 3 years -- not only for
consumers, but for US businesses as well (on their standard 3 year
depreciation cycle).
I'm like you. When I guy, I want _real_ hardware. I'll pay 2-3x to get
it. I know it will last. Like my 10 year-old MicroTek SCSI scanner, my
Thustmaster Attack Throttle+Joystick set, etc... -- many things that
don't work correctly under Windows XP, but have worked on Linux for
almost 10 years!
> Now, do I have this straight? We can have drivers that load into
> Linux (userspace) but are quite separate from the kernel?
Yes and no.
Yes, that's how ATI, Matrox, nVidia, etc... LibGL, X11 and GLX drivers
do work. They are open standard, closed source.
But no, for massive performance gain, they need select
interconnect-memory support that is under (largely) Intel IP, because
it's Intel who controls how the software code that hacks peripheral
busses to look like a system interconnect (maintain coherency with CPUs,
etc...) to support AGP, PCIe, etc... video cards. Heck, it wasn't until
PCIe came out that Intel freed up some IP on AGP so nVidia could finally
release its nForce AGPgart.
Intel has decided to not release it for its own video cards.
Can't remember if Matrox uses a kernel driver or not.
ATI and nVidia do, with major performance boosts.
ATI and nVidia use an unified codebase across all platforms, which is
why their Linux performance isn't lackluster versus Windows -- unlike
Intel.
> If this is the case then I'm all for it. For one thing not related
> to the legal aspects it keeps the kernel smaller surely?
Unfortunately, you can't do some things in user-space.
Like hack the peripheral interconnect in software, so it acts like a CPU
on its system interconnect. That requires kernel level integration.
Again, if AMD buys ATI, one of the major reasons might be to finally
address this last Intel folly and limitation -- one AMD's architecture
doesn't have.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------
Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation"
--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
> This is exactly what I do :-) I made the mistake of purchasing a
> Canon LiDE 50 scanner a couple of years ago. At that time I was 100%
> Microsoft (I had dallied with Linux for years but never had a fully
> productive system). Had I been using Linux properly at the time I
> would not have purchased this particular scanner and I have written
> and told Canon this. I have repeatedly badgered them into providing
> Linux drivers for all their products. However, it needs everyone to
> do this.
Unfortunately, they are catering to 90+% of superstore consumers.
That means cost is supreme. That also means they want the hardware to
work only 1 PC cycle (system, OS, software and other peripherals) --
i.e., 3 or less years (typical US business GAAP depreciation cycle).
So instead of building capable hardware, they use minimal hardware with
software. And that means they license the software from a 3rd party
that sells the same software to countless other companies. Software
that will be useful for only 1 Windows version.
Which means they don't own the IP. Which means they can't sell it. And
they don't care, because it costs them peanuts per unit, but just works
for them -- which sells the product to 90+% of superstore consumers.
Even HP licenses many things from 3rd parties, and can't always open
source support. It has the most support of any major vendor -- short of
800lbs. Intel who forces many to sell only their hardware (and its IP)
-- but even it is missing lots of support from any of its peripherals.
> Nowadays I always do my research into hardware. If it does not run
> under Linux I don't buy it and I let the manufacturer know that they
> have lost a sale. Again, I hope I am not a lone voice shouting into
> the wind.
Unfortunately, we're the overwhelming minority. We're not like 90+% of
superstore consumers. We want hardware that not only works on Linux,
but works on multiple Windows versions.
The superstore model is designed to cater to consumers who believe
anytime they upgrade their PC, OS, software or peripherals, they have to
buy _all_ 4. Again, this is about every 3 years -- not only for
consumers, but for US businesses as well (on their standard 3 year
depreciation cycle).
I'm like you. When I guy, I want _real_ hardware. I'll pay 2-3x to get
it. I know it will last. Like my 10 year-old MicroTek SCSI scanner, my
Thustmaster Attack Throttle+Joystick set, etc... -- many things that
don't work correctly under Windows XP, but have worked on Linux for
almost 10 years!
> Now, do I have this straight? We can have drivers that load into
> Linux (userspace) but are quite separate from the kernel?
Yes and no.
Yes, that's how ATI, Matrox, nVidia, etc... LibGL, X11 and GLX drivers
do work. They are open standard, closed source.
But no, for massive performance gain, they need select
interconnect-memory support that is under (largely) Intel IP, because
it's Intel who controls how the software code that hacks peripheral
busses to look like a system interconnect (maintain coherency with CPUs,
etc...) to support AGP, PCIe, etc... video cards. Heck, it wasn't until
PCIe came out that Intel freed up some IP on AGP so nVidia could finally
release its nForce AGPgart.
Intel has decided to not release it for its own video cards.
Can't remember if Matrox uses a kernel driver or not.
ATI and nVidia do, with major performance boosts.
ATI and nVidia use an unified codebase across all platforms, which is
why their Linux performance isn't lackluster versus Windows -- unlike
Intel.
> If this is the case then I'm all for it. For one thing not related
> to the legal aspects it keeps the kernel smaller surely?
Unfortunately, you can't do some things in user-space.
Like hack the peripheral interconnect in software, so it acts like a CPU
on its system interconnect. That requires kernel level integration.
Again, if AMD buys ATI, one of the major reasons might be to finally
address this last Intel folly and limitation -- one AMD's architecture
doesn't have.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------
Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation"
--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |