Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
Being realistic about Linux hardware compatibility
By Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
on
December 10, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Try installing Windows on Apple or Alpha hardware, then complaining to Microsoft that it doesn't work. You won't get far. In fact, you probably won't even get a reply. And Windows user group people will explain to you that if you want to run Windows, you need to get Windows-compatible hardware. It's the same with GNU/Linux.
I make sure all hardware I buy is Linux-compatible. My scanner, wireless gear, two digital cameras, webcam, and printer were all chosen at least in part because they work with Linux. Ditto the nVidia graphics card and SoundBlaster Audigy cards in my desktop.
My next major computer acquisition will be a video capture/editing workstation I'll use with software that runs on Linux (but not on Windows). I chose it with Linux in mind from the start, just as a person who wants to run the latest Mac video editing software must choose hardware that works with Mac OS X.
Note that I can't indiscriminately install Windows, either. Windows 98 will not work on my HP D220 desktop, period. Windows XP will -- or so I am told; I don't have a copy around to try, and I have had no luck finding a free, legal download site for this operating system, although I have found many for Linux. And this computer works flawlessly with all version of Linux I have tried on it. In fact, it was shipped by HP with MandrakeLinux, not Windows, so I have no right to complain that it doesn't work on the flavor of Windows I happen to have available to install.
The fact that Linux works on as much hardware as it does is amazing. I think we're at the point where we can safely -- and provably -- say Linux works "out of the box" on over 90% of all mass-market PC hardware.
The one place Linux falls much below 90% hardware coverage is on Winmodems, where my experience says compatibility runs about 75%. I explicitly say in my latest book that while it is often possible to get a Winmodem to work with Linux, it is often easier and faster to buy an external hardware modem. I also tell readers to accept the fact that AOL and some other ISPs won't work with Linux, and that they will need to switch ISPs, and how to find one that will work with Linux -- which isn't exactly hard, since at least 80% of all ISPs, up to and including giant Earthlink/Mindspring, are happy to take Linux users' money. (I also note the irony that AOL is a heavy Linux user internally.)
"You can't please everyone" is as true in computer software as in any other field. What's amusing about the people who whine about Linux's current level of hardware compatibility is that hardly any of them are paying customers for any of the distribution publishers -- but still carp about their desires not getting high priority. If they wanted to have a particular PC or peripheral supported, they could probably find someone willing to write drivers or custom
Yes, we'd all like to see all major hardware vendors support Linux, ideally with open source rather than proprietary drivers. But for the moment, the smart thing to do is select our hardware with an eye toward Linux compatibility.
It is no longer hard to find computers and peripherals that "just work" with Linux. A few moments worth of searching before buying can save hours of setup stress, and will absolutely save us from the kind of failure we'd have if we tried to install Mac OS X on a computer meant to run Windows -- or the other way around.
My next major computer acquisition will be a video capture/editing workstation I'll use with software that runs on Linux (but not on Windows). I chose it with Linux in mind from the start, just as a person who wants to run the latest Mac video editing software must choose hardware that works with Mac OS X.
Note that I can't indiscriminately install Windows, either. Windows 98 will not work on my HP D220 desktop, period. Windows XP will -- or so I am told; I don't have a copy around to try, and I have had no luck finding a free, legal download site for this operating system, although I have found many for Linux. And this computer works flawlessly with all version of Linux I have tried on it. In fact, it was shipped by HP with MandrakeLinux, not Windows, so I have no right to complain that it doesn't work on the flavor of Windows I happen to have available to install.
The fact that Linux works on as much hardware as it does is amazing. I think we're at the point where we can safely -- and provably -- say Linux works "out of the box" on over 90% of all mass-market PC hardware.
The one place Linux falls much below 90% hardware coverage is on Winmodems, where my experience says compatibility runs about 75%. I explicitly say in my latest book that while it is often possible to get a Winmodem to work with Linux, it is often easier and faster to buy an external hardware modem. I also tell readers to accept the fact that AOL and some other ISPs won't work with Linux, and that they will need to switch ISPs, and how to find one that will work with Linux -- which isn't exactly hard, since at least 80% of all ISPs, up to and including giant Earthlink/Mindspring, are happy to take Linux users' money. (I also note the irony that AOL is a heavy Linux user internally.)
"You can't please everyone" is as true in computer software as in any other field. What's amusing about the people who whine about Linux's current level of hardware compatibility is that hardly any of them are paying customers for any of the distribution publishers -- but still carp about their desires not getting high priority. If they wanted to have a particular PC or peripheral supported, they could probably find someone willing to write drivers or custom
.config files for a fee, but the idea of paying for Linux customization seems alien to the complainers, even though many of them have no problem comparing (free) Linux with operating systems whose publishers charge substantial licensing fees, and even more substantial fees for customization or one-on-one support.
Yes, we'd all like to see all major hardware vendors support Linux, ideally with open source rather than proprietary drivers. But for the moment, the smart thing to do is select our hardware with an eye toward Linux compatibility.
It is no longer hard to find computers and peripherals that "just work" with Linux. A few moments worth of searching before buying can save hours of setup stress, and will absolutely save us from the kind of failure we'd have if we tried to install Mac OS X on a computer meant to run Windows -- or the other way around.
Comments
on Being realistic about Linux hardware compatibilityNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
The OS movement is big enough now that we should be seeing Penguins, Daemons, and other little open source mascots plastered on the boxes for each compatible piece of hardware.
Trying to install Windows on a Mac is plainly dumb. But I'm expecting that this will work on Intel without too much effort. The same goes with Linux. I just wish that the hardware manufacturers will start to understand this.
You should try my XP PC. Never been happy with XP. Works fine with Linux.... And it's the only PC that I have ever seen being fussy with XP. And it happens to be mine.... Not that I would use XP so much but I wish it worked better when I have to.
Nothing dumb about installing Linux on a Mac. See Yellow Dog Linux for that.
I am guessing your not a tech support person. In my own experince I would say about 80% of the time I can install a current linux distro and have every thing work with drivers after the post install reboot. With windows I run about 70% of the time having to go online or dig through boxes to get all the hardware working.
Manufacturers are not trying to limit their own sales by not printing Linux compatibility on the box, they just don't want to train their support staff to field calls from Linux users. They view it as a small market segment, and the cost of supporting it as high.
There are many different distributions, each with their own kernels, with different levels of drivers installed. There is no way a tech support guy is going to walk you through compiling a new kernel with the new driver that you might need.
If there was a may to distribute kernel driver modules that would work in any Linux kernel, then you might see more manufacturers supporting Linux. Till then, look what nVidia (bless them) has to put up with.
There are many different distributions, each with their own kernels, with different levels of drivers installed. There is no way a tech support guy is going to walk you through compiling a new kernel with the new driver that you might need.
If there was a may to distribute kernel driver modules that would work in any Linux kernel, then you might see more manufacturers supporting Linux. Till then, look what nVidia (bless them) has to put up with.
Good article Robin.
Try installing Windows on Apple or Alpha hardware, then complaining to Microsoft that it doesn't work. You won't get far. In fact, you probably won't even get a reply. And Windows user group people will explain to you that if you want to run Windows, you need to get Windows-compatible hardware. It's the same with GNU/Linux.
I like this viewpoint, its one i spread when people whine too (although Windows NT runs on PPC, Alpha, MIPS and x86) but when i look realistically, many people run x86 hardware which they bought from their hard earned money -- both corporations, individuals and NGO. If they have to sell their old hardware to get compatible hardware they have to:
* Research what works
* Put effort in selling
* Didge money in the effort
Which are a bummer because it works against 'easy' and 'cheap' as Linux tries to be.
If you want to work around this perception and get Linux more adopted, i think you have to solve the above somehow. Because most people don't care wether Linux runs on the AS/400.
Try installing Windows on Apple or Alpha hardware, then complaining to Microsoft that it doesn't work. You won't get far. In fact, you probably won't even get a reply. And Windows user group people will explain to you that if you want to run Windows, you need to get Windows-compatible hardware. It's the same with GNU/Linux.
I like this viewpoint, its one i spread when people whine too (although Windows NT runs on PPC, Alpha, MIPS and x86) but when i look realistically, many people run x86 hardware which they bought from their hard earned money -- both corporations, individuals and NGO. If they have to sell their old hardware to get compatible hardware they have to:
* Research what works
* Put effort in selling
* Didge money in the effort
Which are a bummer because it works against 'easy' and 'cheap' as Linux tries to be.
If you want to work around this perception and get Linux more adopted, i think you have to solve the above somehow. Because most people don't care wether Linux runs on the AS/400.
although Windows NT runs on PPC, Alpha, MIPS and x86
Not any more. NT3 was the last to support Alpha AFAIK. MIPS is only supported for Windows CE now. No idea about PPC. They don't even support X86_64 yet, that's still in beta.
Not any more. NT3 was the last to support Alpha AFAIK. MIPS is only supported for Windows CE now. No idea about PPC. They don't even support X86_64 yet, that's still in beta.
The statement is correct because Windows NT 4 ran on MIPS, PPC, Alpha, and x86. Windows 2000 beta version, with timebomb (hackable) even ran on the Alpha. I don't know about previous versions before Windows NT 4 though but i take your word on it. Everything after Windows NT 4, including 2000 and XP, are still Windows NT, yes -- but they don't carry that name anymore.
The statement is correct because Windows NT 4 ran on MIPS, PPC, Alpha, and x86.
This brings up a good point though. The <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;en-us;lifewin" title="microsoft.com">end of life for NT4</a microsoft.com>* is less than a month away. This means no more security updates, etc. Has Linux ever dropped support for an entire architecture, let alone 3 of them?
* Windows NT Server 4.0 incident and security related hotfix support is available through 31-Dec-2004. Non-security related hotfix support is available only through a custom support contract after 31-Dec-2003.
This brings up a good point though. The <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;en-us;lifewin" title="microsoft.com">end of life for NT4</a microsoft.com>* is less than a month away. This means no more security updates, etc. Has Linux ever dropped support for an entire architecture, let alone 3 of them?
* Windows NT Server 4.0 incident and security related hotfix support is available through 31-Dec-2004. Non-security related hotfix support is available only through a custom support contract after 31-Dec-2003.
They supported it for like 8 years. Windows 2000 will be supported until 2010. Thats all quite long, and kudos to MS for that.
They supported it for like 8 years. Windows 2000 will be supported until 2010.
But your still screwed if you bought M$ on alpha or MIPS.
kudos to MS for that.
Yeah, thanks for nothing. XP is Win2K with a new theme, their own version numbers show that its a minor release.
But your still screwed if you bought M$ on alpha or MIPS.
kudos to MS for that.
Yeah, thanks for nothing. XP is Win2K with a new theme, their own version numbers show that its a minor release.
Everything after Windows NT 4, including 2000 and XP, are still Windows NT, yes -- but they don't carry that name anymore.
Actually, if you look carefully enough, they'll identify themselves as NT 5.0 (2000) and NT 5.1 (XP).
Okay, okay, you're right on that. I meant "NT 4".
Actually the prospect of having a uniform OS across disparate hardware (app servers/web servers/workstations/pos terminals) is appealing. Sys Admins and users alike can easily move between environments with out difficulty.
Expecting hardware designed to work with Windows to work with a Mac, and vice-versa, is obviously unrealistic. The problem is that, when you are in the store, the box clearly says whether it's Windows or Mac. If you're looking for Linux hardware, you have to do the research on your own. Now, I'm all for doing the research, but it would be so much easier if the consumer could look on the box and see a Tux someplace to know Linux is supported.
Supporting operating systems?
Uh, it's the OS that supports the hardware, or it doesn't. Too many people are getting the issue inversely-defined in their heads.
Perhaps this came from the days the manufacturers tried to shove crappy hardware down our throats, and called it something it wasn't--hardware supporting an OS.
What a ridiculous notion!
Uh, it's the OS that supports the hardware, or it doesn't. Too many people are getting the issue inversely-defined in their heads.
Perhaps this came from the days the manufacturers tried to shove crappy hardware down our throats, and called it something it wasn't--hardware supporting an OS.
What a ridiculous notion!
It's not about hardware supporting software or viceversa. It's manufacturers supporting Linux.
The grandparent's got a point. Manufacturers already do it with Windows: you get into a store, you see PCs labeled with "Designed for Windows", you assume all the hardware will work flawlessly with that OS. With Macs well, ditto.
Now, whether or not it's gonna happen, it would be really cool just get into a store, and see a bunch of PCs with a Tux sticker. Then you'll know all of it will work with Linux. Man, that would boost its consumer adoption!
The grandparent's got a point. Manufacturers already do it with Windows: you get into a store, you see PCs labeled with "Designed for Windows", you assume all the hardware will work flawlessly with that OS. With Macs well, ditto.
Now, whether or not it's gonna happen, it would be really cool just get into a store, and see a bunch of PCs with a Tux sticker. Then you'll know all of it will work with Linux. Man, that would boost its consumer adoption!
You will see it some time after Linux makes a small inroads into your home market. In Thailand, where Linux desktops are sold in almost every store, printers and scanners come with a little Tux on the box already. Just be patient...
That's not really true. More and more hardware is shipped with a "works with linux" statement. For hardware with missing linux information, your point is obviously valid.
One way to get Linux better support for devices would be to have a user mode device driver model that could load Java or Mono files and run them as device drivers.
Why?
Because you could do this same thing on Windows with a similar driver. If you could give vendors a single user-space driver model and have common libraries (like SharpUSB) to talk to the hardware itself, then these common drivers would work on all platforms.
You could do it with Forth, as IBM tried to a few years ago with PREP, but with Mono and Java being literally everywhere and with a huge mindshare for writing software on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and Java, I think that it would be much easier to get developers to accept.
At the same time, for many types of devices, the driver spends most of its time waiting for the bus to respond, anyway, and the added benefit of having only checked buffers would tend to result in more secure drivers in terms of buffer overruns, etc. than we have today.
The use of a VM means there wouldn't have to be versions of the driver for each processor architecture, etc. so people running non-Intel architectures would benefit the most from it.
Why?
Because you could do this same thing on Windows with a similar driver. If you could give vendors a single user-space driver model and have common libraries (like SharpUSB) to talk to the hardware itself, then these common drivers would work on all platforms.
You could do it with Forth, as IBM tried to a few years ago with PREP, but with Mono and Java being literally everywhere and with a huge mindshare for writing software on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and Java, I think that it would be much easier to get developers to accept.
At the same time, for many types of devices, the driver spends most of its time waiting for the bus to respond, anyway, and the added benefit of having only checked buffers would tend to result in more secure drivers in terms of buffer overruns, etc. than we have today.
The use of a VM means there wouldn't have to be versions of the driver for each processor architecture, etc. so people running non-Intel architectures would benefit the most from it.
This sounds like it would be incredibly slow.
Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
The problem with using java is not the speed, but the fact that it can't do OS specific tasks. It doesn't integrate with the kernel. It is an application programming language, not a hardware programming language.
The problem with using java is not the speed, but the fact that it can't do OS specific tasks. It doesn't integrate with the kernel. It is an application programming language, not a hardware programming language.
Thunking between user space and kernel space to communicate to a device driver would be inherently slow. That's what the grandparent post was talking about.
I have a 12" powerbook that I've been dual-booting between OS X and Linux. Of more than slight irritation is the fact that the airport extreme still has no support in Linux. Given, this isn't really the fault of the OS, as <A HREF="http://www.broadcom.com/" title="broadcom.com">the manufacturer</a broadcom.com> <A HREF="http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/pipermail/yellowdog-general/2004-September/015889.html" title="terrasoftsolutions.com">refuses</a terrasoftsolutions.com> to provide any sort of docs to their hardware that would make writing the drivers a possibility. The reason of this eludes me, as 11g is not exactly a trade secret nowadays.
PPC users also lack the 3d acceleration capabilities that their x86 counterparts can now take for granted, as NVidia has never gotten around to compiling their drivers for PPC.
For these reasons, my advice to anyone who is considering buying Apple and wants to run Linux on the side: Look elsewhere.
PPC users also lack the 3d acceleration capabilities that their x86 counterparts can now take for granted, as NVidia has never gotten around to compiling their drivers for PPC.
For these reasons, my advice to anyone who is considering buying Apple and wants to run Linux on the side: Look elsewhere.
Don't forget macromedia and his flash player (thanks macromedia to offer only x86 version) and to the big java players (SUN and IBM) to only offer x86 version of the java VM's (ok Blackdown should have a build that run on PPC and the free(dom) Sable and Kaffe are improving daily)...
no, just don't buy the airport extreme and buy a mac with an ati card not nvidia.
By the way, they are working on opensource driver for extreme despite the a**h*les at broadcom
By the way, they are working on opensource driver for extreme despite the a**h*les at broadcom
if it don't work, don't buy it - including the OS
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2004 08:30 AM
A Timely article.
It's been awhile since the issue has been generally addressed.
Why would anyone buy an OS if the hardware
doesn't work ? I see two of those hardware
problems having the biggest impact:
1. winmodems - I have three laying here.
2. scanners on the parallel port - thats why I
can't retire the win98 box. I'm forced to keep it
in service. There's a heck of a lot of those
scanners out there.
and:
3. My Compaq DeskPro 300 Mhz box with a 36X
Creative CD reader (all oem) won't read a CD
with Redhat 8 or 9. I replaced the CD with a 8X.
Spread the risk: the vendors could/should
collaborate on certain key technologies. If
they don't tackle *whats needed*, or what
volunteers can't handle, it's a problem.
While I haven't spent any real money, I've
spent a lot of time and effort doing friendly
promotion of linux in various forms.
whoops - just remembered- I bought ( $$$! )the
original Wordperfect 8 for Linux, which doesn't
work beyond RH6... it's still on the shelf...
Duba-duba-dubbya....
It's been awhile since the issue has been generally addressed.
Why would anyone buy an OS if the hardware
doesn't work ? I see two of those hardware
problems having the biggest impact:
1. winmodems - I have three laying here.
2. scanners on the parallel port - thats why I
can't retire the win98 box. I'm forced to keep it
in service. There's a heck of a lot of those
scanners out there.
and:
3. My Compaq DeskPro 300 Mhz box with a 36X
Creative CD reader (all oem) won't read a CD
with Redhat 8 or 9. I replaced the CD with a 8X.
Spread the risk: the vendors could/should
collaborate on certain key technologies. If
they don't tackle *whats needed*, or what
volunteers can't handle, it's a problem.
While I haven't spent any real money, I've
spent a lot of time and effort doing friendly
promotion of linux in various forms.
whoops - just remembered- I bought ( $$$! )the
original Wordperfect 8 for Linux, which doesn't
work beyond RH6... it's still on the shelf...
Duba-duba-dubbya....
I think you are missing 'the point'.
It is commonplace for people to complain "Why would anyone buy an OS if the hardware doesn't work ?"
Turn that around and it becomes "Why buy the hardware if the OS doesn't work?"
Any modems, scanners or other hardware that will not work on Linux is junk as far as I'm concerned. I don't care that it works on windows any more than I would care if it ran on VMS. I use Linux and if it doesn't work for me then it IS the hardware not supporting the OS. If you have sundry win(now there's a clue!)modems, scanners and other junk cluttering up your space, then for pity's sake throw that junk away! Or give it to some poor windows user.
You are stuck in a rut where you say "I can't get rid of windows because I can't get rid of this old hardware". So what is the reason you can't get rid of the hardware?
What I like about this article is the part where Rob say's "..we're at the point where we can safely -- and provably -- say Linux works "out of the box" on over 90% of all mass-market PC hardware."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. now that is a major achievement, with very little support from hardware manufacturers.
You complain about the fact that you have ended up with some hardware that falls into the 10%. But rather than see it as a problem easily solved (ditch the hardware), you see it as an obstacle. This article is trying to point out the flaw in that type of thinking. Suddenly, it stops being something you have to wait for someone else to fix.
cheers, and good luck.
fvwmfan
Good hardware instead of "compatible" hardware
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2004 10:14 AM
This is the thing that simply kills me:
Remember the days of USRobotics modems -vs- cheap Hayes knock-offs; Tseng Labs graphics card chipsets, and ATI being crap; (When haven't they been crap?) Epson being the defacto impact printer standard, with HP as the shining light in laser printing; Chips & Technologies motherboards were the hottest thing going; 3Com was the network adapter to have, and Adaptec ruled the roost in terms of mass storage access.
The rule of thumb was then formed: "Don't buy garbage hardware."
Winmodems? I have to confess that I can't think of a sane reason to waste the money on such a crippled piece of junk. Same goes for Winscanners like Mustek.
If you buy high-quality hardware, it's highly likely that Linux compatibility will never be an issue, although I have certainly seen problems with windoze drivers in this venue.
If you buy crap hardware, it's highly likely that you'll have problems with any operating system--not to mention that it's self-evident that you wasted your money.
Remember the days of USRobotics modems -vs- cheap Hayes knock-offs; Tseng Labs graphics card chipsets, and ATI being crap; (When haven't they been crap?) Epson being the defacto impact printer standard, with HP as the shining light in laser printing; Chips & Technologies motherboards were the hottest thing going; 3Com was the network adapter to have, and Adaptec ruled the roost in terms of mass storage access.
The rule of thumb was then formed: "Don't buy garbage hardware."
Winmodems? I have to confess that I can't think of a sane reason to waste the money on such a crippled piece of junk. Same goes for Winscanners like Mustek.
If you buy high-quality hardware, it's highly likely that Linux compatibility will never be an issue, although I have certainly seen problems with windoze drivers in this venue.
If you buy crap hardware, it's highly likely that you'll have problems with any operating system--not to mention that it's self-evident that you wasted your money.
Re:Good hardware instead of "compatible" hardware
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2004 11:37 AM
It just depends. Popular hardware can mean 'good support'. For example, Some OSes start with supporting the RTL8139 but don't support 3c905x...
Re:Good hardware instead of "compatible" hardware
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2004 04:27 AM
em... ATi hasn't been junk for years in terms of hardware. R200 (Radeon 8500) has proven itself as a great hardware platform alone, even today remaining competitive because of the support of Pixel Shader 1.4
And then you had the R300 and the subsequent self-destruction of Nvidia.
Now, if you want to fuss at ATi for not supporting Linux, go ahead. ATi does deserve that.
But to just call ATi junk and then say that they've always been junk? You need to look back on your history mate, because you have it dead wrong.
je.saist
www.gamenikki.com
And then you had the R300 and the subsequent self-destruction of Nvidia.
Now, if you want to fuss at ATi for not supporting Linux, go ahead. ATi does deserve that.
But to just call ATi junk and then say that they've always been junk? You need to look back on your history mate, because you have it dead wrong.
je.saist
www.gamenikki.com
Re:Good hardware instead of "compatible" hardware
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2004 04:56 PM
Why look back on a history that I had to live through as an integrator?
I'll grant you that ATI had some good ideas, back in the w3.0/3.1 days with their windows accelerator cards but, even so, they couldn't come close to the performance of Diamond Multimedia Systems, Tseng Labs and Hercules; and they never really went anywhere with their supposedly great ideas. (Then, of course, VLB hit the streets, and ATI found themselves behind the power curve again.) At best, ATI was a fifth-rate card with buggy driver support--for both DOS and gen-1 windoze.
Hell, their Radeon 9700 card doesn't even cut-it with windoze 9x/me (an associate's personal machine).
I don't carp about ATI having crappy Linux support, because it's immaterial to me. I learned long ago that you don't buy crappy hardware, so ATI never makes it in the front door. Hell, I've had less problems with ATI on Linux than I have with ATI on windoze--simply judging by my experiences with customer equipment.
If you like the "Lada of video adapters." More power to ya.
I'll grant you that ATI had some good ideas, back in the w3.0/3.1 days with their windows accelerator cards but, even so, they couldn't come close to the performance of Diamond Multimedia Systems, Tseng Labs and Hercules; and they never really went anywhere with their supposedly great ideas. (Then, of course, VLB hit the streets, and ATI found themselves behind the power curve again.) At best, ATI was a fifth-rate card with buggy driver support--for both DOS and gen-1 windoze.
Hell, their Radeon 9700 card doesn't even cut-it with windoze 9x/me (an associate's personal machine).
I don't carp about ATI having crappy Linux support, because it's immaterial to me. I learned long ago that you don't buy crappy hardware, so ATI never makes it in the front door. Hell, I've had less problems with ATI on Linux than I have with ATI on windoze--simply judging by my experiences with customer equipment.
If you like the "Lada of video adapters." More power to ya.
Re:Good hardware instead of "compatible" hardware
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2004 05:17 PM
Where do you get this nonesense? I suppose it's relative dependong on who you are comparing them to. But compared to Nvidia's product lines ATI's are behind by a long shot.
The only thing that has kept ATI in the market at all is DirectX and D3D enchancements to their drivers. Half of those enchancements only boost performance on benchmarks.
The only thing that has kept ATI in the market at all is DirectX and D3D enchancements to their drivers. Half of those enchancements only boost performance on benchmarks.
Hardware compatibility as computer Darwinism
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 11, 2004 11:39 AM
As a longtime hands-on hardware guy it has always seemed to me that Linux hardware compatibility serves as a good reference point for what type of components to include when building a system regardless of the choice of OS or distro. By-and-large, drivers and such tend to be provided for best-of-breed components and continue to be supported as the Linux kernel evolves.
One of the more subtle advantages of open source is that although initially it may be difficult for a component to prove itself worthy of inclusion; once it's adopted the support tends to continue for a long time. It's interesting to consider, for example, how many windows-only components were "orphaned" when Microsoft transitioned from the 9x series to NT5x.
Finally, one of the more disturbing trends I'm noticing in the open source world is a tendency for component OEMs to provide drivers in an RPM only format. It's as if they're trying to get it but really don't.
One of the more subtle advantages of open source is that although initially it may be difficult for a component to prove itself worthy of inclusion; once it's adopted the support tends to continue for a long time. It's interesting to consider, for example, how many windows-only components were "orphaned" when Microsoft transitioned from the 9x series to NT5x.
Finally, one of the more disturbing trends I'm noticing in the open source world is a tendency for component OEMs to provide drivers in an RPM only format. It's as if they're trying to get it but really don't.
Re:Hardware compatibility as computer Darwinism
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 12, 2004 04:33 PM
Yeah, but that's what alien is for.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
I couldn't agree more to this.
I have an old scanner which ist still more than enough for my needs. When I bought it, it came with drivers for NT4 and Win98/ME. W2K and XP were never supported. Shortly after I bought the thing, it was supported by sane and it still is. I continue using a device with windows which would have been junk for a long time if I used Windows.
I have an old scanner which ist still more than enough for my needs. When I bought it, it came with drivers for NT4 and Win98/ME. W2K and XP were never supported. Shortly after I bought the thing, it was supported by sane and it still is. I continue using a device with windows which would have been junk for a long time if I used Windows.
Easier said than done... Can some one tell me?
What I run into is when I build or even add a printer to a Linux system is there is almost no support listed for the new stuff that is on the shelves.
Major distro’s like Suse have a HCL that is basically worthless. Has any one tried using it?
There is no hardware listed newer than 3 – 4 months old. By the time it is listed the stores are out of those models and have the newer ones on the shelf.
I recently built a new system and searched all over to find a motherboard. I went to MSI. Asus, Tyan, Gigabyte’s sites and it was like none of them heard of Linux.
I went to several distro’s sites (SuSE, Mepis, Mandrake, Debian) and none had any of the new hardware listed as compatible, MB, sound, video etc…
Sometimes you get a small blurb, but as for real HCL, it is almost non existent.
The only hope I had was to go to forums where I was taking opinions. Most probably were good advice, but who knows what skill level the author has on hardware.
I get the gist of the article, but getting solid info on Linux HCL is still like pulling hens teeth.
What I run into is when I build or even add a printer to a Linux system is there is almost no support listed for the new stuff that is on the shelves.
Major distro’s like Suse have a HCL that is basically worthless. Has any one tried using it?
There is no hardware listed newer than 3 – 4 months old. By the time it is listed the stores are out of those models and have the newer ones on the shelf.
I recently built a new system and searched all over to find a motherboard. I went to MSI. Asus, Tyan, Gigabyte’s sites and it was like none of them heard of Linux.
I went to several distro’s sites (SuSE, Mepis, Mandrake, Debian) and none had any of the new hardware listed as compatible, MB, sound, video etc…
Sometimes you get a small blurb, but as for real HCL, it is almost non existent.
The only hope I had was to go to forums where I was taking opinions. Most probably were good advice, but who knows what skill level the author has on hardware.
I get the gist of the article, but getting solid info on Linux HCL is still like pulling hens teeth.
Re:Easier said than done... Can some one tell me?
Posted by: Mandrake Magician on December 12, 2004 01:27 PM
My experience is that Linux can handle any mobo you throw at it. Ditto for hard drives, NIC's, monitors and a whole slew of other devices. Hardware support simply isn't the issue it once was.
I let the computer sales clerk know I am buying the component to work with Linux and, if I need to take it back, give non-compatibility as the reason. It's been a LONG time since I had to take anything back.
ALL of the clerks at my local hole-inna-wall store use Linux at home (yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I did a little cheerleading, they listened, they used it and they loved it) and none give me any grief about returns. The clerks I have seen at CompUSA seem to have spent too much time listening to the MSFT salesrep and too little learning about computers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so I don't bother with places like CompUSA.
I let the computer sales clerk know I am buying the component to work with Linux and, if I need to take it back, give non-compatibility as the reason. It's been a LONG time since I had to take anything back.
ALL of the clerks at my local hole-inna-wall store use Linux at home (yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I did a little cheerleading, they listened, they used it and they loved it) and none give me any grief about returns. The clerks I have seen at CompUSA seem to have spent too much time listening to the MSFT salesrep and too little learning about computers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so I don't bother with places like CompUSA.
It's not even close to being as hard as you describe. Motherboards are generally supported. The only problems being certain integrated graphic, network and IDE/SATA-Raid controllers. If you want to check compatibility here, try to determine which chips are used and simply run the chip name through google. If your get hundreds of questions regarding that chip in mailinglists or linuxquestions.org, be careful. If you only find some discussions in LKM, it's rather safe to buy the hardware.
Printers are another thing. You are generally safe if you buy printers supporting standards or quasi standards. If your printer does PCL or PS, it works. Many newer printers are crippled though, having most of the printing logic in the driver. If that is the case, things start to look bleak.
But as the author of the article said, if it's broken (windows only) don't buy it. Look for postscript or PCL printers and they will work plug and play.
Printers are another thing. You are generally safe if you buy printers supporting standards or quasi standards. If your printer does PCL or PS, it works. Many newer printers are crippled though, having most of the printing logic in the driver. If that is the case, things start to look bleak.
But as the author of the article said, if it's broken (windows only) don't buy it. Look for postscript or PCL printers and they will work plug and play.
it is often easier and faster to buy an external hardware modem.
This is crap. My workspace is cluttered enough without an "external modem". Get real.
There are, and have always been, plenty of internal modems that are full-function modems supporting the classic (originally Hayes) "AT" command set.
Like this one: http://www.usr.com/products/home/home-product.asp<nobr>?<wbr></nobr> sku=USR5610B
Sorry, but it is definitely not crap.
You may have a problem with space, I don't.
For me the issue is "How do I get this working quickly, easily and with the confidence that I won't have to go back to the shop for a refund after having spent half a day mucking around inside my computer" The answer is "it is ALWAYS easier and faster to buy an external hardware modem." They just work. I don't want to know about drivers or chipsets. I want internet connection.
I agree. The PC architecture is designed for slotting cards in, so why is the point of not taking advantage of this. It is not just a space issue; I don't want a rat's nest of cables in a corner of my desk. It is not only the external modem and its cables; another mains socket is needed and very often a separate transformer.
I remember early personal computers when even hard drives and serial ports were added externally. No-one would dream of doing that today, but unfortunately there is an entrenched remaining tradition of accepting external modems, an attitude kept alive by such as Amomalous (above).
I would not agree that there are "plenty" of modern internal Linux compatible modems, but that does not matter because you only need one. The problem is knowing which ones are compatible. I use a Multitech MT5634ZPX-PCI, which cost about 5 times as much as a Winmodem because it has an on-board controller. That's why it works with Linux - it doesn't need a highly specific driver.
I remember early personal computers when even hard drives and serial ports were added externally. No-one would dream of doing that today, but unfortunately there is an entrenched remaining tradition of accepting external modems, an attitude kept alive by such as Amomalous (above).
I would not agree that there are "plenty" of modern internal Linux compatible modems, but that does not matter because you only need one. The problem is knowing which ones are compatible. I use a Multitech MT5634ZPX-PCI, which cost about 5 times as much as a Winmodem because it has an on-board controller. That's why it works with Linux - it doesn't need a highly specific driver.
Perhaps I have gotten lazy. Perhaps I am just one lucky slob. But today I bought a mobo, cpu and ram without regard for its Linux compatibility. I took them home, plugged them in to replace a failed mobo and booted. During the boot, kudzu paused to get my approval to drop a bunch of missing hardware and add its replacements<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... taking perhaps two minutes and more likely less. Then it continued the boot sequence and, once I got signed in, 'just worked'.
I've never seen a Windows computer do that. And I go all the way back to DOS 1.x (I think it was 1.2 but I didn't write it down).
I've never seen a Windows computer do that. And I go all the way back to DOS 1.x (I think it was 1.2 but I didn't write it down).
I absolutely agree. After doing a fresh install of Windows, you usually get to spend hours looking for drivers for your hardware. Unless you have something very new or off the wall, Linux generally has driver support built in. I would argue that Linux has better hardware support than windows for a lot of hardware.
I've had the same experience: I've been simply using the same Linux installation for years, over many hardware changes and had to trow away a rotten Windows (tm) installation in the process.
I recently installed Ubuntu Linux on a spare partition, partly to probe the current user-friendlyness of user-centric Linux distributions. I was pleasantly surprised: without answering a single question about my hardware configuration, everything just worked, including my graphics with a good refresh-rate.
My experience with any GNU/Linux distribution is that I can install it anywhere without problems.
I do hear about problems, of course, but I'm not gullible enough myself to buy a winmodem or winscanner.
When fixing Windows boxes, I'm allways struck by the sheer difficulty of finding and installing drivers, especially with hardware from pre-2000 on recent incarnations of Windows.
If I buy a new computer system then some parts usually don't need to be exchanged. My cd burner and my scanner both are native scsi devices. In this case it's assured to have compatibility with my Linux system. There's some hardware I would never buy because it cannot communicate with my Linux box
bad examples:
PocketPC - needs ActiveSync which is MS$ proprietary (Palm OS is 'more' compatible)
GDI printer - needs MS$ GDI to communicate (Postscript printers can be used with nearly every operating system)
GPS devices (AFAIK none of them can share data with Linux)
On the other hand there are examples where it could be possible to have comparible results but software companies don't invest to do ports:
If you own a hard disk recorder (eg. Yamaha AW16G) then you usually get MIDI configuration dumps which allow the usage of this device from Cubase or Prologic. Neither runs natively on Linux.
Most commonly known OCR programs need MS$ operating systems. That's a shame.
It would be really good if companies think about such incompatibilities. Everyone could benefit if devices use common storage formats based on XML and if such devices can exchange either via RS232 (something which is about to die because motherboard manufacturers stop including RS232 interfaces into motherboards) or 'USB storage'
On the other hand there is some hardware which would never run MS$ operating systems because they cannot crack that barrier...just think about a 64 way system having two cpu cores...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
bad examples:
PocketPC - needs ActiveSync which is MS$ proprietary (Palm OS is 'more' compatible)
GDI printer - needs MS$ GDI to communicate (Postscript printers can be used with nearly every operating system)
GPS devices (AFAIK none of them can share data with Linux)
On the other hand there are examples where it could be possible to have comparible results but software companies don't invest to do ports:
If you own a hard disk recorder (eg. Yamaha AW16G) then you usually get MIDI configuration dumps which allow the usage of this device from Cubase or Prologic. Neither runs natively on Linux.
Most commonly known OCR programs need MS$ operating systems. That's a shame.
It would be really good if companies think about such incompatibilities. Everyone could benefit if devices use common storage formats based on XML and if such devices can exchange either via RS232 (something which is about to die because motherboard manufacturers stop including RS232 interfaces into motherboards) or 'USB storage'
On the other hand there is some hardware which would never run MS$ operating systems because they cannot crack that barrier...just think about a 64 way system having two cpu cores...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
I had no trouble with an Etrex gps unit. It, and as far as I know, a lot of others have a serial interface with NEMA standard data stream.
"Try installing Windows on Apple or Alpha hardware, then complaining to Microsoft that it doesn't work."
That is a silly argument, because Microsoft does not claim Windows will work on Apple. Linux does claim it will work on a PC... Frankly, I would much prefer developers to drop support for Alphas, MIPS, Amigas and 49 other obscure systems nobody ever heard of, and give me decent support for nVidia, Radeon, nForce chipsets and Audigy... "but they work", you say? Well, check any forum and count the posts from people trying to get these most common pieces of hardware to work - and then tell me there is no room for improvement!
That is a silly argument, because Microsoft does not claim Windows will work on Apple. Linux does claim it will work on a PC... Frankly, I would much prefer developers to drop support for Alphas, MIPS, Amigas and 49 other obscure systems nobody ever heard of, and give me decent support for nVidia, Radeon, nForce chipsets and Audigy... "but they work", you say? Well, check any forum and count the posts from people trying to get these most common pieces of hardware to work - and then tell me there is no room for improvement!
well same goes for windows
some drivers also have compatability problems in windows and if you don't know how then how can you install a driver
In linux its a case of once you know its easy
same goes for windows
some drivers also have compatability problems in windows and if you don't know how then how can you install a driver
In linux its a case of once you know its easy
same goes for windows
(I do agree its not a solid argument.)
You pay people for support, then you decide what they work on. If you don't, you have no mandate or more voice to say what one should program or not.
Afaict, Radeon, Nvidia are both 'closed hardware' with specs and IP not being disclosed. So you have to resort to closed source drivers too, on 1 architecture. This is unfortunate, but the result of a bigger problem. IOW, while your complain might be right, you're addressing the wrong people, and you don't have anything to say about how one spends his/her time.
This besides the fact that that hardware support is useful in some situations. Linux on MIPS is even commercially sold (Montevista) and without that several SGI/MIPS computers currently not supported anymore would be EOL because SGI / IRIX doesn't support them anymore. Not a shame, i can understand, but this new life is cool actually. People work on that support as hobby, because thats what they like to do. I could continue about Motorola 68000 and ALPHA but i guess you got the basic point. Anyway, regarding ALPHA, Linux is one of the few Free and Open OS which runs on it while allowing a decent performance.
You pay people for support, then you decide what they work on. If you don't, you have no mandate or more voice to say what one should program or not.
Afaict, Radeon, Nvidia are both 'closed hardware' with specs and IP not being disclosed. So you have to resort to closed source drivers too, on 1 architecture. This is unfortunate, but the result of a bigger problem. IOW, while your complain might be right, you're addressing the wrong people, and you don't have anything to say about how one spends his/her time.
This besides the fact that that hardware support is useful in some situations. Linux on MIPS is even commercially sold (Montevista) and without that several SGI/MIPS computers currently not supported anymore would be EOL because SGI / IRIX doesn't support them anymore. Not a shame, i can understand, but this new life is cool actually. People work on that support as hobby, because thats what they like to do. I could continue about Motorola 68000 and ALPHA but i guess you got the basic point. Anyway, regarding ALPHA, Linux is one of the few Free and Open OS which runs on it while allowing a decent performance.
The point of the argument is this..
If you are an ordinary user, then don't try and run software on hardware that doesn't support it.
You understand the difference in architectures and wouldn't dream of trying to run windows on a apple hardware or macOS on intel architecture. Furthermore, you do not see this as a limitation of either windows or macOS.
Now, simply transfer that logic to the case of devices. Some devices support linux, some don't. The argument says "don't try and run linux with those devices because they are not right for it". It's not a limitation of linux, just a piece of money- and time-saving advice.
Now this is an analogy, and like all analogies is not perfect. Klever people like you can point out that architecture support is not the same as driver support, etc etc but that's not the point. The point is that the average moron knows that apple and intel are different and you don't buy apple hardware to run on your pc. So maybe they can also understand that linux support and windows support are also not the same, and you don't buy windows-only hardware to run with linux.
This is actually a very good argument, because it brings that aspect into focus.
Your statement that "Linux claims to work on a PC" is disengenuous. For one, Linux never claims to work on hardware that is not supported, PC or otherwise. And secondly, you seem to think that Linux will only (or should only) work with PC architecture. In fact Linux works on more architectures than any other operating system in history. (So much for poor hardware support!) Maybe you have never heard of those other architectures, but that just shows up your limited computer knowledge and experience. Your silly advice that Amiga programmers should stop writing for a platform they know and love just to write drivers for you is stupid and selfish. The argument that your chosen devices are common is irrelevent. If you want mainstream, go with MisterShaft. Then you get common.
Linux does claim it will work on a PC...
I don't want to be picky... but in fact, if you look at the licences, you will see that nobody claims anything.
I am not familiar with proprietary software licenses, but I bet they too do not claim to much. (they probably do "disclaim" a lot)
I'm really looking forward to Project Utopia, which tries to make hardware support for Linux much more easier. Futhermore, there was this idea on Shouldexist.org to develop an application which uses a database to check wether the hardware of a (Windows) computer works under Linux. It'd show 'green' if it works using an open source driver in the kernel, 'yellow/orange' if its not included in the mainstream kernel yet or uses a proprietary driver, and 'red' for unsupported. It'd use a ruleset it gets from the Internet, and there are already such databases which include information on 'what hardware doesn't work' or 'what hardware works'.
Nice in theory, but as several people have said, in practise making sure something is Linux compatible is a PITA. If I go into a PC World and see a digital camera, or webcam, or wireless gizmo that I like the look of, I want to be able to pick it up and buy it. But they all declare MS/Mac support without mentioning whether they work on Linux.
Ask the staff... of course they know nothing. Can I bring it back if it doesn't work? Nope. None of the dedicated computer shops I've found know anything about Linux (which I find strange, 10 years ago all the small PC shops were owned by people who actually knew something useful).
So it's make a note of the most interesting looking models they have and go back home and find out which ones work on Linux. Find out none of them are listed, but get list of models which are known to work. Go back to shop, which of course doesn't have any of those models.
Buying online is easier, but it's still an effort. Often it involves contacting the manufacturer and hoping that they've heard of Linux.
For someone who has a large amount of disposable income, and a willingness to spend it on cool gadgets, I've made zero purchases of things because they looked cool over the last few years, and three things because I needed them but didn't want to spend hours researching. Of the latter, two got returned because they flatly refused to work with Linux, the third only works under some versions of 2.6.
Buying only Linux compatible stuff is a fine idea, but there needs to be an easy way to find out if something is Linux compatible at the point of sale.
Ask the staff... of course they know nothing. Can I bring it back if it doesn't work? Nope. None of the dedicated computer shops I've found know anything about Linux (which I find strange, 10 years ago all the small PC shops were owned by people who actually knew something useful).
So it's make a note of the most interesting looking models they have and go back home and find out which ones work on Linux. Find out none of them are listed, but get list of models which are known to work. Go back to shop, which of course doesn't have any of those models.
Buying online is easier, but it's still an effort. Often it involves contacting the manufacturer and hoping that they've heard of Linux.
For someone who has a large amount of disposable income, and a willingness to spend it on cool gadgets, I've made zero purchases of things because they looked cool over the last few years, and three things because I needed them but didn't want to spend hours researching. Of the latter, two got returned because they flatly refused to work with Linux, the third only works under some versions of 2.6.
Buying only Linux compatible stuff is a fine idea, but there needs to be an easy way to find out if something is Linux compatible at the point of sale.
Buying only Linux compatible stuff is a fine idea, but there needs to be an easy way to find out if something is Linux compatible at the point of sale.
A lot of the big name techno stores have some of their display computers hooked up to the internet. A good googling should be easy to do.
Alternatively, you could write the model number down and go do a little research. Avoid the impulse purchase!
Classic Roblimo...i.e. classically bad reasoning
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2004 01:51 AM
The complaint is that Linux supports much less of the available x86 hardware than other x86 compatible OSes. It's a valid complaint that is partially an issue with hardware vendors and their reluctance to support non-MS OSes and partially an issue with Linux vendors. At one time the design of the Linux driver model and a lack of well published and formalized abstraction layers (though I think all of this has been more or less fixed...don't quote me though) also contributed.
As usually, Roblimo substitutes agressive prose and fanatical mantras for solid reasoning and problem solving. I also buy Linux friendly hardware because I'm knowlegable about the workarounds required to get Linux to be as effective as Windows (more effective in reality) so I'm not saying the idea that you have to approach the issue with an eye toward Linux compatibility is without merit on a personal level. However, to completely dismiss the problem using the apples and oranges comparison of Apple vs. MS and trying to install Windows on PowerPC hardware is not helpful and doesn't move us any closer to a Linux that functions well for the general, monkey-level, public users.
As usually, Roblimo substitutes agressive prose and fanatical mantras for solid reasoning and problem solving. I also buy Linux friendly hardware because I'm knowlegable about the workarounds required to get Linux to be as effective as Windows (more effective in reality) so I'm not saying the idea that you have to approach the issue with an eye toward Linux compatibility is without merit on a personal level. However, to completely dismiss the problem using the apples and oranges comparison of Apple vs. MS and trying to install Windows on PowerPC hardware is not helpful and doesn't move us any closer to a Linux that functions well for the general, monkey-level, public users.
I have built my last two PCs with Linux in mind, and it is still not easy. Kit may or may not be compatible, and for all I know most of it is, but first you have to find out whether it is. Don't expect the box or the maker's web site to tell you.
There are Linux compatiblity lists, but they rarely have recent kit (eg most modems listed are 14.4kB ISA ones).
Even after getting the kit, you will spend many hours searching the net for advice and editing scripts by trial and error. There are nothing like the Windows installation Wizards, and don't expect any advice from the maker or shops whatever. Its like two orders of magnitude harder than Windows - not only is Linux kit harder to install, advice on doing so so are more sparse.
Roblimo mentions only modems as a problem area. What about printers? There are loads of Winprinters out there : these are cheap boxes with just the print head, head cross drive and the paper traction. The control is done by the (Windows) driver in the PC, the details of which are treated as an industrial secret. It is therefore not possible to write a Linux clone, so, yes, sorry Rob, I AM moaning. (OTOH, HP have Linux drivers for many of their printers).
For Linux therefore a more expensive type of printer with on-board controllers is required. A really expensive Postscript printer solves the problem but otherwise the list is a bit limited.
There are Linux compatiblity lists, but they rarely have recent kit (eg most modems listed are 14.4kB ISA ones).
Even after getting the kit, you will spend many hours searching the net for advice and editing scripts by trial and error. There are nothing like the Windows installation Wizards, and don't expect any advice from the maker or shops whatever. Its like two orders of magnitude harder than Windows - not only is Linux kit harder to install, advice on doing so so are more sparse.
Roblimo mentions only modems as a problem area. What about printers? There are loads of Winprinters out there : these are cheap boxes with just the print head, head cross drive and the paper traction. The control is done by the (Windows) driver in the PC, the details of which are treated as an industrial secret. It is therefore not possible to write a Linux clone, so, yes, sorry Rob, I AM moaning. (OTOH, HP have Linux drivers for many of their printers).
For Linux therefore a more expensive type of printer with on-board controllers is required. A really expensive Postscript printer solves the problem but otherwise the list is a bit limited.
Since so much hardware is supported, my idea was to make a list of the hardware that is not supported. Furthermore, if something you bought seems to work, you don't have much incentive to go fill in a form and let the world now. If you bought something that doesn't work with Linux, maybe you are peeved enough to let the world know so that other people won't buy stuff from that manufacturer.
In any case, hardware that isn't compatible with Linux may be found here: <A HREF="http://www.leenooks.com/" title="leenooks.com">Linux Incompatibility List</a leenooks.com>
Ciao,
Dave
In any case, hardware that isn't compatible with Linux may be found here: <A HREF="http://www.leenooks.com/" title="leenooks.com">Linux Incompatibility List</a leenooks.com>
Ciao,
Dave
Good hardware support on Free OSes
Posted by: rabbit78 on December 11, 2004 03:56 AMThe only problem that I see is, that on every single box with hardware it is printed that it is compatible with Windows. But rarely if it works with Linux, not talking about BSD. That makes it hard to simply not buy free-OS-incompatible hardware. This has lead myself to not buying lots of hardware in the last years, I am happy that I have reached a state where my computers are working really good with Linux and BSD.
#