"Windows Certified" Blah Blah Blah

[NoVista]

When I am shopping for computer hardware, I feel my blood pressure go up a bit more every time I see that term.
All it makes ME do is immediately make me turn my attention to a product that DOESN'T say that, lol.
What I want to see are a bunch of penguins plastered all over the box, lamenting how well the product works with any kernel!

I wonder what mainstream computer hardware companies come to mind to you all, when thinking, "Yeah, that's a company that supports Linux 100 percent."
Sadly, I cannot think of one.

So tell me, what companies that heavily support Linux come to YOUR mind?

[LaRoza]

"Yeah, that's a company that supports Linux 100 percent."
Sadly, I cannot think of one.

So tell me, what companies that heavily support Linux come to YOUR mind?

Intel

[gn2]

Intel
Acer
HP
IBM/Lenovo
MSI
Asus
NVidia

[bufsabre666]

When I am shopping for computer hardware, I feel my blood pressure go up a bit more every time I see that term.
All it makes ME do is immediately make me turn my attention to a product that DOESN'T say that, lol.
What I want to see are a bunch of penguins plastered all over the box, lamenting how well the product works with any kernel!

I wonder what mainstream computer hardware companies come to mind to you all, when thinking, "Yeah, that's a company that supports Linux 100 percent."
Sadly, I cannot think of one.

So tell me, what companies that heavily support Linux come to YOUR mind?

novell canonical redhat
intel AMD Nvidia
dell hp ibm system76

[ChameleonDave]

lamenting how well the product works with any kernel!

In the words of the great Iñigo Montoya (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes), "You keep using that word (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/lament?view=uk). I do not think it means what you think it means (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/boast?view=uk)". ;-)

Computer manufacturers that support Linux? Hmmm, OLPC (http://laptop.org)?

[rickyjones]

When I am shopping for computer hardware, I feel my blood pressure go up a bit more every time I see that term.
All it makes ME do is immediately make me turn my attention to a product that DOESN'T say that, lol.
What I want to see are a bunch of penguins plastered all over the box, lamenting how well the product works with any kernel!

I wonder what mainstream computer hardware companies come to mind to you all, when thinking, "Yeah, that's a company that supports Linux 100 percent."
Sadly, I cannot think of one.

So tell me, what companies that heavily support Linux come to YOUR mind?

Uh, so it is a bad thing to tell your customers what operating systems your product works with? Maybe instead of being angry you could make note of the company and product and write them a polite letter telling them that you do not use Windows and would like to see their hardware work on Linux.

These companies go where the consumers are. The majority of their customers use Windows, so that is the platform that they look to for certification.

Ask them why they do not certify their products for Linux. They might tell you "we don't know, never thought about it." Or they might say because there is no central organization that handles standardization between various distributions of Linux, which makes support near impossible.

Point is, instead of getting mad maybe you could work with these companies and help them improve. That is the Linux way, correct? Work with each other, share knowledge, etc...?

Thanks,
Richard

[billgoldberg]

Everything with Intel inside it should work out-of-the-box.

[prshah]

So tell me, what companies that heavily support Linux come to YOUR mind?

One more vote for Intel. Processor, Graphics, Motherboard, LAN, WLAN and Sound (though that's just OEM realtek)

Then there's a small little company in a corner of Chennai, Tamilnadu, India... it's called 1st Choice (Computer) Services..

[NoVista]

Nothing wrong with saying what OS it works with. I'm simply tired of being inundiated with the Windows Certified seal of approval, like it was golden seal of honor or something.

All I asked what companies came to mind. (To a Linux user).
Not what I need to do to introduce/persuade a company to the Linux Way. That's another topic. :)

[zmjjmz]

Or they might say because there is no central organization that handles standardization between various distributions of Linux, which makes support near impossible.



http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB

I know Dell is selling Ubuntu computers, but not in retail.
System76 and Zareason have some good ones though.

[rickyjones]

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB

I know Dell is selling Ubuntu computers, but not in retail.
System76 and Zareason have some good ones though.

Want to know what I would look for if I was creating hardware or software for Linux? A corporate office to visit. A name of someone that will work with me to certify my hardware or software. A general information phone number or email address to use that will put me in touch with someone who can help me.

Not what I finally found on that website:


For help, join the lsb-discuss mailing list or the IRC channel #lsb at irc.linux-foundation.org.


I don't believe any serious hardware manufacturer, or software developer, is going to join an IRC chat to get information.

I don't believe that these obstacles are helping the Linux community, in my humble opinion.

Thanks,
Richard

[zmjjmz]

Then those corporations need to get out of the 20th century.
Sun was perfectly happy to do it, right?

[rickyjones]

Then those corporations need to get out of the 20th century.
Sun was perfectly happy to do it, right?

Or the Linux community could help these companies enter the 21st century by being a little more accommodating, providing more assistance during the entire process. Reach out to companies that the community feels could be a boost to the community and make first contact, instead of complaining about XYZ not working and instituting a boycott.

Just my 2 cents.

Sincerely,
Richard

[zmjjmz]

XYZ not working isn't followed by a boycott, it's when XYZ doesn't work and the manufacturer refuses to help.

[rickyjones]

XYZ not working isn't followed by a boycott, it's when XYZ doesn't work and the manufacturer refuses to help.

Why does the manufacturer refuse to help? That question needs to be addressed and whatever obstacles prevent the manufacturer from continuing also need to be addressed.

Sincerely,
Richard

[Npl]

Sorry, but Linux was never meant to be for Consumers. Some Distros aim to be easy, but the fact is still that many of the Linux-Devs get paid for their services. Something like "making it easy for users" or even "providing good documentation" is not a priority. Money comes from setting up and maintaining Linux, not making it easy for everyone to do it themself.
If you compare what documentation for Ubuntu is available to those "commercial" OSes then you cant help but cry. Documention for GUI-Apps roughly consists of obvious oneliners describing menu-entries ("File->Open opens a file dialog"). And dwelling deeper is an agonizing pain of finding out what components are used where and then trying to find docs for them. I cant see any Hardware-developer verifying their drivers for each and every Distro and providing (free) support for it.

[LaRoza]

Sorry, but Linux was never meant to be for Consumers.
Linux wasn't meant to be used? Consumers are the only ones who use it...

[Npl]

Linux wasn't meant to be used? Consumers are the only ones who use it...Directly, as in end-user running just the desktop and not hacking around. You know what I meant

[rickyjones]

Sorry, but Linux was never meant to be for Consumers.
This line enforces my claim that the Linux community, whichever community that is, really needs to come together as a standard to decide what this project or movement really is about.

Do you wish to provide a usable system to gain market share?
Do you wish this system to be large enough to encourage complete and open standards between people?
Do you wish this system to be usable by anyone?

Depending on who you ask you'll get all yes' or all no's. More commonly a mix.

My opinion? You need the market share to push the open standards. You need the usability to gain the market share.

Sincerely,
Richard

[LaRoza]

Directly, as in end-user running just the desktop and not hacking around. You know what I meant

Um. Get an XP or Vista disk, and get a PCLinux/OpenSUSE/LinuxMint/Ubuntu disk and see what is easier.

Windows is a big pain. It requires you to know your hardware, it requires basic drivers to be installed (and many restarts) and is a long and boring install process. Not only that, Windows has no useful software when it is installed.

Linux on the other hand...

[rickyjones]

Directly, as in end-user running just the desktop and not hacking around. You know what I meant

So I, as a simple desktop user, should not be using Linux? Am I not special enough? Or elite enough to use this system?

I'm not trying to troll, I'm just trying to point out that the "elite" thinking is what drives people away, yet from other parts of the community all you hear is about how new users need to be attracted to Linux.

A united front must come first before Linux can really take off.

Yet again, just my humble thoughts. I'm just criticizing idea, not people (so I apologize if my words offend anyone, they are not meant to be taken in an offensive manner).

Sincerely,
Richard

[atomkarinca]

Sorry, but Linux was never meant to be for Consumers.

This is from GNU homepage:


The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html): the GNU system.

Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful.

[Npl]

Sigh, I shouldve known this would fall both on deaf ears and be misinterpretation in any possible way.

No, I dint meant consumers shouldnt use Linux, no I dint mean WinXP is painless, no I dont hate Linux. But I cant stand ppl beeing so delusional about it.

As Kernel (thats what Linux is) alone its useless, its tailored first and foremost for servers (thats where most of the core developers get its $$ from, they dont develop out of generosity alone). Its there to be configured from people that know what they are doing and it typically requires you to look into source-code to learn it, theres no online help what-so-ever describing much of its details.

As Linux alone is useless, you are bound to chose from various components - and for simple-users thats what distros are for. And god behold if something goes wrong, you are then forced to find out what innards your distro has and find documents for it. I know because I was trying to disable the damn standby-button on a previous Ubuntu-Version. Guess what, there are config-files describing they change acpi-stuff with options to disable the Button and Standby as whole, scripts that are presumely executed when the button is pressed, but they all do nothing (yet being installed and configured). The solution was editing a setting in gconf-editor, which I dint know existed until then. I found this out by merely trying everything thats hinted anywhere on the net. Theres no help-file anywhere describing what system Ubuntu is (currently) using, yet how to configure them.
Have you ever opened a device not mounted with fstab and looked at its property-dialog? You can edit a "Mountpoint", but this aint apparently doing what it should, beeing documented nowhere and if you enter something wrong you can again find out how you reverse the setting as you cant mount the device again and have no dialog for it.
If theres any help you can easily reach from the default installation describing that and more, let me know.

So, how should Hardware-vendors possible provide support if every distro is different and has it own quirks? Or are we talking about just putting a senseless works somewhere-somehow-sometimes on linux Sticker on the Box?

[LaRoza]

As Kernel (thats what Linux is) alone its useless, its tailored first and foremost for servers (thats where most of the core developers get its $$ from, they dont develop out of generosity alone). Its there to be configured from people that know what they are doing and it typically requires you to look into source-code to learn it, theres no online help what-so-ever describing much of its details.

That is more than you get with Windows, and it altering the kernel isn't an everday task. Even advanced users don't typically do it.



So, how should Hardware-vendors possible provide support if every distro is different and has it own quirks? Or are we talking about just putting a senseless works somewhere-somehow-sometimes on linux Sticker on the Box?

Hardware compatibility is all about the kernel. The Linux kernel supports my webcam, that is why it works flawlessly when I plug it in. Windows doesn't, which is why it doesn't work unless I plug it into the USB port it happened to be in when I installed the "driver" and restarted the computer.

As for support, the OEM's provide that. Lenovo ships Thinkpads with SUSE on it, and they support it, just like they do when it is XP or Vista. Dell is doing a form of Ubuntu, Asus is doing...soemthing else (don't remember which ones). Supporting them for the user isn't any harder than the various forms of Windows.

[rickyjones]

So, how should Hardware-vendors possible provide support if every distro is different and has it own quirks? Or are we talking about just putting a senseless works somewhere-somehow-sometimes on linux Sticker on the Box?

This is why there needs to be a united front. All distributions need to follow the exact same standard. If a distribution wishes to stray then the application developer will no longer support them. However they can still support the distributions that agree to use the same code base.

I truly believe that more applications would be ported if you have several large distros that all come together and agree on many common things such as:

* Package management
* File locations
* Device detection and handling
* Security principles
* Kernel version
* Etc...

I know I did not hit them all but that is definitely a start, in my mind.

As it stands right now you have hundreds of distros each with their own unique differences and sometimes a slightly different thing going on behind the scenes. You have deb, rpm, source, etc... A software company has no idea on where to start and they really do not want to support all these different systems. However they need to have a large enough user base to make it worth their while to code for. If all distros would support the same install method, the same hardware, etc... then it will be much easier to convince companies to provide software ports.

Sincerely,
Richard

[zmjjmz]

A common myth I;ve seen repeated is that most distros don't support the same installation method.
Sure there are differences between tgz, deb, rpm, etc., but understand one thing.
At the heart of a package all there is is the binary and some metadata telling the package manager where to put the files and what dependencies it has.
So, in reality, if our package manager(s) had say, alien built in, we could forget about the whole deb rpm tgz bamboozle.
Let me submit that to Brainstorm.


---

Now then, doesn't that seem like a much better solution to porting than unifying all distros and eliminating choice?
I think so.

[LaRoza]

A common myth I;ve seen repeated is that most distros don't support the same installation method.
Sure there are differences between tgz, deb, rpm, etc., but understand one thing.
At the heart of a package all there is is the binary and some metadata telling the package manager where to put the files and what dependencies it has.
So, in reality, if our package manager(s) had say, alien built in, we could forget about the whole deb rpm tgz bamboozle.
Let me submit that to Brainstorm.


That is true. Getting a package in the tar.gz format is very portable.

[zmjjmz]

Brainstorm is being _really_ slow.
Jeez.
Are they hosting a mirror of FF3 by any chance?

[rickyjones]

That is true. Getting a package in the tar.gz format is very portable.

Portable but not the easiest, or cleanest, to install. Many times it requires you to know what config switches you want during the configuration stage. How many users really know this information? How many users really want to install applications via the terminal?

Thanks,
Richard

[LaRoza]

Portable but not the easiest, or cleanest, to install. Many times it requires you to know what config switches you want during the configuration stage. How many users really know this information? How many users really want to install applications via the terminal?


I never had a problem.

[cardinals_fan]

Portable but not the easiest, or cleanest, to install. Many times it requires you to know what config switches you want during the configuration stage. How many users really know this information? How many users really want to install applications via the terminal?

Thanks,
Richard
Slackware's .tgz packages are easier to create than any other packaging system I've tried. With rpm and dpkg installed on my Slack box, I can easily convert other packages to tgzs.

[zmjjmz]

I think alien integration would actually be better, though it'd be hard to get every distro to conform to using that in their package manager.

[FyreBrand]

Um. Get an XP or Vista disk, and get a PCLinux/OpenSUSE/LinuxMint/Ubuntu disk and see what is easier.

Windows is a big pain. It requires you to know your hardware, it requires basic drivers to be installed (and many restarts) and is a long and boring install process. Not only that, Windows has no useful software when it is installed.

Linux on the other hand...
Installing Vista is not a pain and just as easy as an openSUSE install and both have worked for me right out of the box. Get an XP install disc and a 6 year old Linux install disc and lets talk about what is easy. Neither work or rarely work out of the box. There are always drivers to install, xorg.conf to configure, or something nearly deal breaking that needs to be done.

The fact is that the Vista installer is excellent and Microsoft has come a long way in making an end user install of Windows easier. The same is very true of major Linux distributions. It is so much easier now to install Ubuntu, oSUSE, and Fedora (along with their relatives) than ever before. Now you can install Linux and have it work out of the box.

What is useful software and what is and should be installed is very subjective and open to debate. This is one reason, in my opinion, why full oSUSE and Fedora install DVD's offer what smaller Ubuntu live CD's don't; a very customizable installation process so I get what I want on install. Windows program installation is a different approach and software installs are just a USB drive, internet download, or network install away. Just because something takes a different approach doesn't mean it's wrong or inferior. I tell my XP developer friends this all the time when they over-generalize about how Linux works (or doesn't in their case).

Bottom line is that rickyjones brings out some very very good points. The idea to attract business is not only to make it easy and hand hold them but to provide them roi/bottom-line type of incentive. ricky has offered some very tangible ideas that sound great to me.

[zmjjmz]

Bottom line is that rickyjones brings out some very very good points. The idea to attract business is not only to make it easy and hand hold them but to provide them roi/bottom-line type of incentive. ricky has offered some very tangible ideas that sound great to me.

May I suggest http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com then?

[HermanAB]

Uhmmm, how about System 76. There is even a forum for them right here http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=341

[LaRoza]

Installing Vista is not a pain and just as easy as an openSUSE install and both have worked for me right out of the box. Get an XP install disc and a 6 year old Linux install disc and lets talk about what is easy. Neither work or rarely work out of the box. There are always drivers to install, xorg.conf to configure, or something nearly deal breaking that needs to be done.

The fact is that the Vista installer is excellent and Microsoft has come a long way in making an end user install of Windows easier. The same is very true of major Linux distributions. It is so much easier now to install Ubuntu, oSUSE, and Fedora (along with their relatives) than ever before. Now you can install Linux and have it work out of the box.

What is useful software and what is and should be installed is very subjective and open to debate.


Get that same Vista disk and try to install it on a computer with less 1 GB of RAM...

Windows installations are harder and less useful by default than most Linux distros that I have ever seen.

If Vista had good hardware support, my webcam that is Vista Certified with all drivers installed would work in all USB ports.

[rickyjones]

Get that same Vista disk and try to install it on a computer with less 1 GB of RAM...

... it will be slower? Are you trying to say that the installation will fail?



Windows installations are harder and less useful by default than most Linux distros that I have ever seen.

I will concede that a default installation of Windows really does not come with very useful stuff... but the last time Microsoft tried to include useful things they were convicted of being a monopoly. So what do you want? Will you call Microsoft a monopoly if they bundle a full office suite with a Windows installation? Or will you be cool with it because they are providing a more useful default installation?



If Vista had good hardware support, my webcam that is Vista Certified with all drivers installed would work in all USB ports.
I've had that same problem with various other devices with different operating systems. I've also not had that problem with other devices with the same operating systems. My guess would be that the device needs a very special driver, and this driver is only talking to one port on the computer (similar to how many modems and software will only look for COM1 or COM2, even if you don't have a "COM1" port...) I believe blame for this problem rests on the third party drivers. How this is Microsoft's fault I do not know but I'm sure someone will enlighten me.

Sincerely,
Richard

[gn2]

Justifying/defending Microsoft in these forums is a waste of your valuable time.
No-one here will suddenly think, ah rickyjones is right, Windows is excellent, I'll just ditch Ubuntu.

The clue is in the title, Ubuntu forums.

[NoVista]

Geez. What was the question again?

[Chame_Wizard]

that Winblow$ sucks a lot :grin:

[zmjjmz]

Actually, MS got convicted because it was their own product.
If they incorporated someone else's product, it'd be fine.