Patrick Barnes wrote:
I think an 'HIL' would suffer exactly the same problems and an HCL, just
from a different perspective. Anymore, such a list is really not even
necessary. Very, very little hardware still cannot be used with Linux.
Some older, proprietary, and rare hardware will not run, but overall
your odds are as good with Linux as they are with Windows. The only
concern is how much effort getting the hardware to run will take. An
HCL/HIL will not solve that, but Google queries work nicely to pull up
guides for most hardware. This will become even more of a moot point
going forward. At the moment, you have much better odds of hardware
working on a 64-bit Linux system than you do with a 64-bit Windows
system. Linux is not the niche OS it once was. The need for HCL/HIL's is
fading.
If indeed, it is true that very little hardware cannot be used, that
should make the job of producing a HIL list very easy. Such a list
would reduce the duplication of effort required by every user trying
to get hardware for their system. Also, such a list would provide
incentive for manufacturers who produce proprietary hardware to get
themselves off the list. I have been burned a few times already by
getting hardware that I found out later lacked a Linux driver because
it was proprietary and the manufacturer either didn't care or felt no
need to enable the open source community to create drivers. Even if
the hardware is returned, the time and effort involved is often more
valuable than the purchase price of the hardware.
It may not be the job of the FDP to create such a list, but it would
be a great community service for someone to do it, and the FDP has
the visibility to make influence and support such an effort.
George
--
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
