Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 May 2003 15:16:30 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | What exactly does "supports Linux" mean? |
| |
Dear all,
I recently came across a very annoying question regarding Linux compatibility. It rises a fundamental question which should be discussed, IMHO. Facts are: I bought a card from some vendor, claiming "support for Linux". I tried to make it work in a configuration with a standard 2.4.20 kernel from kernel.org. The drivers (kernel modules) are binary-only. They did not load because of a version mismatch. Asking for versions loadable with standard kernels, I got the response that they only support kernels from Red Hat and SuSE, but no standard kernels. This leads to my simple question: how can one claim his product supports linux, if it does not work with a kernel.org kernel? Is there any paper or open statement from big L (hello btw ;-) available what you have to do to call yourself "supporting linux"? I know that the technical background is ridiculous, because it should very well be possible to recompile their drivers under stock 2.4.20, but it looks like they don't want to, simply. I am in fact a bit worried about this behaviour, because I take it as a first step to a general market split up already known to *nix. My general conclusion would be that something not working with a standard kernel cannot be called "supporting linux", no matter what distros ever are supported. You may call me purist... Any ideas?
Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |