Dear list, The UVC driver web site (http://www.ideasonboard.org/uvc/faq/) reports that when “I have an UVC webcam but it is not working”, I should follow a given sequence of actions and post the resulting findings to this list. I have an UVC webcam but it is not working. And I (think I) followed the instructions and posted the result ( https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg177756.html) to this list (the faq points to the linux-uvc-devel mailing list, but I know from another post that this one is the right list, https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg177462.html). I got no reply. Let me state clearly that I do not believe that I have any right to complain about this. I am not paying for a service, open source developers have jobs and lives and more feature requests than time, and so on. This post is a interrogation, not a complaint. First, I wonder if, despite having tried to follow instructions, I would have missed some important information in my earlier post, that would discourage answering it. If so, I hope someone will be kind enough to answer this meta-request about how I should have better phrased my initial post. Second, I wonder if perhaps it is a general pattern that readers on this list do not have enough time and interest to consider such kind of requests (as suggested by the existence of similar questions I have found, linked in my previous post, that also went unanswered). Perhaps this depends on the age or popularity of the device, or other factors that I ignore but that I suspect some developers here may know. If such a general pattern is known, may I suggest that the wording on the UVC driver FAQ be modified, so as to inform readers (if vaguely) of the a priori chance that their request be considered? (Perhaps specifying the cases which tend to be considered and those that tend to be ignored.) This would save everybody’s time. Third, I wonder if the “Hercules Dualpix Chat and Show” Webcam (06f8:3007) should be granted a footnote pointing to my previous post in the table on the website (http://www.ideasonboard.org/uvc/)? Unless a single report of defect is not considered sufficient to raise serious suspicion. Sincerely, -- Olivier
