[Tfug] 2 weeks of Hackintosh fun..

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Claude Rubinson <rubinson at u.arizona.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:41:41AM -0800, Bexley Hall wrote:
> > I've got an OnAir GT USB DTV tuner.  Is there a Linux driver for
> > it?  Does it *really* work?  Will it run on version XXX of the
> > kernel?
> 
> But now you're changing your argument.  At first it was "Linux lacks
> driver support."  But that's not true.  Now it's "Linux lack drivers
> for the newest hardware."  Yes.

Don't be silly.  The argument hasn't changed.  Unlike folks here
who might rescue older hardware, *most* people using computers
are using machines that were purchased in the last three years.
The average age probably being closer to 2 years or less.  Those
folks aren't looking for drivers for an EXOS 205; instead, they
want the *photo*-quality printer that they just bought to work 
correctly (and not show orange skin tones, etc.)

(remember, we're talking about *most* people... those same types
who replace their computer with each new MS cycle).

The hardware in those machines will tend to be less supported
than hardware in older machines -- because the driver developers
haven't even *seen* the hardware that's in them let alone had
the time to reverse engineer it and develop a *reliable* driver for
it.

And, given the commodity nature of this business, the only real
edge vendors have over their competitors is if they can do something
better/cheaper/different than others.  You obviously don't
willingly disclose those "tricks" to your competitors else
they'll be producing clones of your product and selling them
for less than you can *make* them!

E.g., for the longest time, QLogic wouldn't divulge any of the details
of how their SCSI controllers worked.  Sure, they missed out on the
FOSS OS market -- but, I don't think they lost any sleep over it!  :>

What percentage of the available laptops will distro X run on
"out of the box" and *completely* support the available hardware
on that laptop (why pay for hardware that you aren't using?)?
Sure, given time, the drivers will (hopefully) catch up to the
hardware.  But, then my hardware is out of date, etc.

> Because of the nature of Linux development, that's to be expected.
> But, again, what do I care?

*You* might not care.  But, are you telling the universe of
computer users that *they* shouldn't care -- if their built-in WiFi
doesn't yet work?  Or, the magic buttons on their keyboard?
Or, the new USB printer they bought with the machine?

*I* only care about *my* work environment.  Hence, I don't run
the latest and greatest MS bloatware.  I don't play with Macs
because I don't want to have to repurchase any of the software
in which I have already invested many kilobucks just to change
the logo on the front of the machine I'm using, etc.  I'm the
carpenter with the 20 year old hammer with paint splashes on it...
that still drives nails *straight*!  :>

But, others don't seem to share that belief (I love listening to
stories of how much time folks spent "upgrading" their environment
and then wonder why they seem surprised when I resist their 
suggestions that I do the same.  Otherwise, there would be a
*huge* market for 18-month old hardware.

> Frankly, that's irrelevant to me.  Because I don't trust vendors.
> Their interests are not aligned to mine.  I do trust the kernel
> developers, however.  When I buy hardware that's supported by the
> mainstream kernel, I know that it'll be supported

Great!  Now you just need to convince the kernel developers that
they should start designing and manufacturing computers -- at
competitive prices -- so you can buy the (state of the art) machine
that everyone else can buy today!  :)

> forever.  (The "mainstream" qualifier is because out-of-kernel
> drivers are not necessarily as reliably supported as in-line 
> drivers.)  I certainly wouldn't have that guarantee if I were 
> running Windows or OSX.
> 
> The primary consequence is that I don't buy new because my priority
> is stability.  As John point out, it's incredibly frustrating when
> vendors change their chipsets behind the scenes.  But, as he also
> points out, that's on the vendors' shoulders.  And what happens when
> they do that?  I don't buy from them again.  And I tell others not to.

And exactly how many of those vendors have gone out of business
*or* changed their policies to support Linux, for example, as a
result of your actions?  Even the folks who *embed* Linux into
their products for resale don't bend over backwards -- little
more than whatever the license requires ("Here's the source code,
you're on your own...")

> If it's the website that's too blame (in my experience, it's actually
> the website that's misled me more often than the actual vendor), I
> don't buy from that website again.  And, again, I tell
> other people not to buy from them.  Seems fair to me.

Works *great* -- as long as they don't have anything that you
can't get elsewhere (for the same competitive price/quality)!

<grin>  I am very slow to move off NetBSD releases because I've
taken ownership of making sure all the drivers and applications
that I use "stay working" with each new release.  I can much
easier live with version N of a tool with a set of known issues
than risk it all to move to N+1 with a set of yet-to-be-determined
issues.  The same is true of my W2K and Solaris machines.  They
do what I want/need now so why dick with them?

If I come across a piece of hardware that I want to interface with,
I can usually find a driver hidden somewhere on the 'net.  And,
an application that will talk to it.  I don't scratch my head
*wondering* if I'll be able to use it.