What about vendors? [LWN.net]

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 13:38 UTC (Thu) by tclark (guest, #32451)
Parent article: "Just works with Linux"

It seems to me that we're letting hardware vendors off the hook here. The people who produce and sell the hardware are in a good position to evaluate its compatibility with Linux, and they have a clear interest in telling us about it.

What we need is a web site where hardware vendors can register their Linux compatible hardware, certifying that it meets clear and strict compatibility standards. Perhaps certified hardware vendors could display a "just works with Linux" seal on the product.

We would rely on vendors to be truthful, but we could keep them honest by requiring that vendors supply sample hardware for testing on demand and periodically spot checking. Vendors failing such a test could lose their certifications for a year or so,

(Log in to post comments)

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 14:01 UTC (Thu) by droundy (subscriber, #4559) [Link]

Indeed, I think the key is to get some sort of "works with vanilla linux" certification program, and
allow vendors (and retailers) to specify that they're certified. Once vendors realize that being on
this list is a way to attract customers (even if it's just a few), then as long as they already qualify
it'll be well worth their while to keep the database up to date.

If the certification requires that the device work with vanilla linux, then it'll also encourage
vendors to submit patches to the mainline kernel. I suppose I'd also like a "sort of works with
vanilla linux" to handle devices that can work with reduced functionality on the vanilla kernel
(e.g. no 3D). Often, reduced functionality is still plenty--I can't remember the last time I ran a
3D program...

David

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 14:21 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Margins on consumer hardware are typically so razor thin that the vendors just don't have the means to support Linux. Desktop Linux users make up only a tiny fraction of the potential market yet Linux support tends to be an utter nightmare (what kernel version are you running, what distro, what patches, ...)

Until a noticeable fraction of CompUSA customers are running Linux desktops, hardware vendors aren't on the hook for anything.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:13 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

That's just it -- If they provide documentation to interested developers, or provide a full open-source driver they *don't* have to provide anything more in the way of support.

Most of the "support nightmare" of Desktop Linux goes away when your driver is provided as full source, and goes away almost entirely if it goes into the kernel -- they only need to actually support the developers who are responsible for maintaining the driver.

And it's alwo worth mentioning that those selling "consumer hardware" with "razor thin" margins aren't actually developing their own drivers for Windows either; by and large they're handed to them from their ODMs or the chipset manufacturers. The latter is especially true of wireless cards. The OEMs would love to hand out Linux drivers, but they don't have anything to give to their customers because their upstream provider won't supply it, or let them.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 17:32 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

I don't want them to support "Linux". I want each vendor to support at least one target Linux distribution (be it a custom one), that should be free enough.

Specifically: no binary drivers allowed. Not even through wrappers such as ndiswrappers.

If the product works well with ReferenceLinux, chance are other linux packagers will be able to adapt it to their distro. And if not: the community will.

HW/SW Linux certification

Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:07 UTC (Thu) by bkw1a (subscriber, #4101) [Link]

I like the idea of a "just works with Linux" sticker program, giving
vendors the right to put a recognizable logo on their packaging if
they can verify that their hardware works with the mainline linux kernel.
(Of course, there's still the question of whether it'll work with
the available user-space tools in a given distribution, but at least
it's a start.)

I'd also like to see a similar program for software. More and more,
I find that software that claims to "work with Linux" really only
works on some very recent distributions. I support ~ 200 Linux
machines, and my users frequently complain that they've tried to
install some software, only to find that we'd need to upgrade to a new
distribution version to get the software to work.

This is only partially the fault of the software vendors. They
understandably can't compile many different versions of their
software for many different distribution versions.

The second big contributor to the problem is the lack of support for old
APIs. Under Windows, I can install the current version of Acrobat
reader on machines running Windows 95,98,NT,2000,XP or 2003. Software
written today will still run on Windows versions 10 years old. In
contrast, in the Linux world, a QT- or gtk-based program written
today won't even run under a distribution released last year.
This is frustrating for both vendors and users.

I don't know the solution to this second problem. Maybe just
more-stable APIs. Maybe some way of gracefully failing when a
newer feature is found not to be available. I think it's
a problem that really needs to be addressed soon, though, if
Linux is going to be accepted widely on the desktop.

FUD, FUD, FUD

Posted Dec 15, 2005 21:52 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Under Windows, I can install the current version of Acrobat reader on machines running Windows 95,98,NT,2000,XP or 2003. Software written today will still run on Windows versions 10 years old.

Check your facts - or you'll look ridiculous.

Let's check your facts, shell we ?. I'm happy "10 years old Windows" user. 10 years old Windows is "Windows NT 4.0" or "Windows 95". Let's start !

I'd like to install Acrobat reader. Latest and greatest is "Acrobat reader 7.0.5". Can I use this ? Of course not! Acrobat reader 7.0.5 is only compatible with Windows XP - not even Windows 2000 is enough (not without SP2 anyway). Oh, too bad. Can I use Acrobat reader 6.0.1 instead ? Nope: you need Windows 2000 or Windows 98SE (Windows 95 or Windows 98 are not supported). Oooh, ok. How about Acrobat reader 5.0.5 ? Still no cigar: Windows 95 or Windows 98 is required (Windows95 user is happy at this point: he/she got only two generations old Acrobat reader; Windows NT 4.0 user is still not). Argh. Can I at least use Acrobat Reader 4.0.5 ? No: even this thing is only compatible with Windows NT 4.0 SP3, not my "10 years old Windows". My only hope is ancient Acrobat Reader 3.0.1... Four generations old...

How is this for "support for old APIs" ? Sure: I can install ancient Acrobat Reader 3.0.1 on my Windows XP SP2 - but that's not such a big achievment: most distrost do include compatibility packages.

P.S. Big thnx for selection of package - some new programs are still runnable on old versions of Windows. Acrobat reader is not one of them.

HW/SW Linux certification

Posted Dec 16, 2005 2:38 UTC (Fri) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link]

I seem to keep running into the opposite problem: Someone asks me to install a Linux binary they found somewhere (in some cases after they paid six figures for it), and I hear that the thing supposedly only runs properly on six-year-old versions of Red Hat. Often the word "run" is generous, and in a number of cases I have forced vendors to admit that their software limps like a wounded waterfowl at best on any Linux version, but there is no hope at all of this software working on a modern Linux distro.

A quick phone call to the vendor followed by some not-so-quick escalation up the support ladder and I end up talking to some engineer who is working on porting the application to a three-year-old version of Red Hat. It should be ready for general release next quarter.

Fast forward a year, and the sales weasel comes to install their "new" software on the now-four-year-old version of Red Hat. I thoughtfully dig through my CD-R archive and provide a machine with exactly the specific old Red Hat version requested. I even provide a second machine with all the official updates to that Red Hat version applied. Both are running a vanilla configuration unless the weasel specified otherwise. Neither works out of the box with the weasel's software, although they fail in different ways.

These days I'm sick of playing the "supported platform" game. I just tell the weasel what we have on our desktops ("here's the install CD guys, have fun"), and that we'll pay only for whatever parts of their software work after they are installed.

HW/SW Linux certification

Posted Dec 16, 2005 14:42 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It's the same in Windows world. I know one case where vendor two years ago (that's 2003, folks!) finally started to support... what ? Windows 2003 ? Windows XP ? Windows 2000 ? No! Windows NT 4.0SP6a!!! Yup - till that time they only supported "Windows NT 4.0SP5"! Situation is quite similar to Linux versions, right ?

HW/SW Linux certification

Posted Dec 16, 2005 23:08 UTC (Fri) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link]

I know of one vendor who is *at this moment* in the process of porting their application from Windows 3.1 (with 16-bit DLLs and everything) to Windows 2000.

On the other hand, at this moment the old Windows 3.1 binaries do work on Windows 2000 if you install all the relevant backward DLLs...I wish the major Linux distributions made it easier to do that.

SW Linux certification

Posted Dec 22, 2005 22:07 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link]

>a QT- or gtk-based program written
>today won't even run under a distribution released last year.
>This is frustrating for both vendors and users.
>
>I don't know the solution to this second problem.

Possible solutions:

- Build on old distributions. The resulting binaries often work with
new libraries. However, sometimes they don't, but that can be
tested relatively easily (test it on a system with new libraries).
The disadvantage is that the program would have to restrict itself
to the ancient API.

- Use static linking. This has some disadvantages wrt security
updates and on-disk and in-memory size, but it could be supplied as
a fall-back option (the old system probably does not have the
updates anyway).

- Compile the program from source (or use a source-based distro like
Gentoo). At least that gets rid of some gratuitious
incompatibilities thrown in by linking with modern libraries,
although not from the API dependences.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:55 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link]

What we *need* is to be very clear with vendors about our requirements. If you're buying a Linux-installed system, and you want only open-source drivers, you need to tell the vendor exactly that. Make it crystal clear. Tell them, "If, when I receive this system, I determine that any of the hardware is using proprietary or other than non-free drivers, I will return the system and demand my money back." They can make all the claims they like (well, not *all*), and if they ship something that's not completely free, they can excuse themselves by citing the lack of technical knowledge on the part of the salesperson. Vendors will get away with this for as long as we let them.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 16:55 UTC (Thu) by tlw (subscriber, #31237) [Link]

Agreed. It's too easy for a vendor to write "works with Linux", but that's not specific enough. "Works with Linux" should be defined to mean:

specifications are available
driver is open-source
driver is integrated into the kernel.org kernel

It's happened to me before where I'll obtain a device, it comes with a CD with source code (great!)... for kernel 2.2.20 and 2.4.9. It would be nice if "works with Linux" were a shorthand form of saying "we work with the Linux community".

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 19, 2005 7:28 UTC (Mon) by rakoenig (subscriber, #29855) [Link]

"driver is integrated into the kernel.org kernel"

Ok. I'm working at a vendor and my job is to make sure that Linux is running on our PCs.

Your statement is nice, but I can tell you what we're currently going through:

Launched a PC with a new southbridge. That caused problems because it wasn't supported in the kernel, so Linux was unable to "see" the SATA drives. We did a lot of effort to fix this issue and since 2.6.14 the driver is in the vanilla kernel.

But that actually doesn't have much impact on our customers: All the current distributions (RHEL, SLES, Debian, Fedora Core 4, SUSE Linux 1O...) are shipped with a kernel that is less than 2.6.14. The result is that if a customer tries to install he runs into the problem that his installation program will report that there are no hard drives!

So fixing issues on kernel.org kernels is just the half work. The other half must be done by the distributors. And since this is an issue that affects installation it leads to the need of new installation media, that makes the issue more complicated. It would be easy to do a kernel update online, but as long as you're unable to create a running system from your
installation media you're probably not happy.

Well, for that issue there is light on the horizon: Fedora Core 5 Test 1 has the fix, so is with openSUSE 10.1 alpha. SLES 10 will ship with it and Red Hat promised to have the patch in Update 3 of RHEL4. So soon the situation will get much better for the customers.

But "driver is integrated into the kernel.org kernel" is not enough.

One solution could be hardware certification, but unfortunately there are not much certification programs around. And a RHEL4 certification won't imply that the machine is running fine with Debian/Sarge.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 19, 2005 14:58 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

it's true that getting the hardware to work with the kernel.org kernel doesn't instantyly make it work with all distros, however once or twice a year (sometimes more) the distros update their kernel from kernel.org. (this is one of the reasons for the 2.6 development model, to allow the distros to sync up more frequently and reduce the lag (and divergance) between the different kernels.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 21, 2005 9:26 UTC (Wed) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link]

once or twice a year (sometimes more) the distros update their kernel from kernel.org

This isn't true for the enterprise distros. They stick to the same base kernel for years, just backporting new drivers as they see need.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 20, 2005 16:11 UTC (Tue) by kalou_ti (guest, #32988) [Link]

"Perhaps certified hardware vendors could display a "just works with Linux" seal on the product."

When I went to England about 2 years, I was astonished and happy to see such a sticker on many hardare. YES, I saw hardware sold with a Pinguin to confirm that the hardware runs Linux.

I have always been wondering how this has been done in the UK, and would be happy to have feedback on this from someone living in the UK out there.

What about vendors?

Posted Dec 21, 2005 9:23 UTC (Wed) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link]

What we need is a web site where hardware vendors can register their Linux compatible hardware, certifying that it meets clear and strict compatibility standards.

Who is going to run that web page and be the certification authority? And who is going to pay for it? The vendors of, say, USB modems or flash card readers??

Certification is an expensive task and I fear most HW vendors don't think it'll pay off (with the notable exception of expensive server hardware, such as high-end RAID controllers).