Re: Driver injection disk debconf templates in D-I
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Er, no. The OEM is the "original manufacturer" of the equipment. There's
> nothing ambiguous or diluted about this. There are many different OEMs, and
> in different contexts the term will be used to refer to different equipment,
> but the term is used quite consistently and accurately across the industry.
I'm sure that's how it looks from your angle, but it looks very
different to poor ignorant industry outsiders like me and the
authors of Wikipedia's entry on this TLA, which starts with a
paragraph titled "Contradictory and confusing definitions" and says
they date right back to the sixties.
>> So ? I dont' think we lose any information by being more explicit.
>
> You're not being more explicit, you're being *less* explicit. An "OEM
> driver injection disk" explicitly refers to a driver injection disk provided
> by the OEM.
That's true. Would "manufacturer-supplied" cover it? Or maybe even
just "built-in"?
> A "hardware driver injection disk" could refer to a driver disk
> provided by anyone, with no hint to the user as to where they should find
> this or when to give up looking. If you tell the user, "this refers to
> disks provided by your OEM", then they know where to look for such a disk
> and when to conclude that no such disk exists for their use.
How specialised is this hardware? I don't think ordinary shoppers
in PC World consider themselves to _have_ OEMs, and nor would they
benefit particularly from fine distinctions between the manufacture,
assembly, and retail stages in the supply chain - all the users want
to know is that the driver injection disk is provided as part of the
hardware they're buying.
In fact, emphasising the fact that it's built in might save the user
some trouble looking for removable-media OEM driver disks.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: