Re: What exactly does "supports Linux" mean?

[jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>]

On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 06:05:09PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > >  > Linux compatible:
> > >  >     Source code driver is available as a patch.
> > > 
> > > In other words, if a patch is available for the 1.0.0 kernel, they
> > > can claim "Linux compatible" ??? That's meaningless...replace with
> > > something like...
> 
> Yep, I guess patch for 1.0.0 kernel would count as Linux compatible. I

If the box has been on the shelf for 8 years it would.  If
the driver isn't in mainline i'm not very interested in what
drivers are in the box.  I want a URL where i can go and
look to see the versions for download.

> even believe that patch for FreeBSD would count as Linux
> compatible. As long as you can get source of the driver, it is easy.

There is a big difference between "some assembly required"
and "some machining required".  Driver source that has to be
modified doesn't count.  This isn't labelling for kernel
hackers.  Some people need it to just work, others are OK
following a script to patch and rebuild or setup an insmod.
What we are talking about is enough info that someone should
feel comfortable buying the box with the expectation of
support at the level they require.

> Maybe better sticker would be
> 
> "includes driver sources".
> 
> [Long time ago I got double-speed cdrom, and on its driver disk, there
> was C source of the driver. Porting it to linux was matter of two
> days, IIRC. And it had korean comments ;-)].

Perhaps you'd be willing to help Aunt Tillie do this.  Your
definition of "includes driver sources" will appeal to such a
small market segment it isn't worth the ink on the box.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt