Re: best labtop for debian
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:34:56 -0600
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 08:21 AM, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:47:19 -0600
> > Ron Johnson<ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/16/2011 04:51 PM, Celejar wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:13:17 -0500
> >>> shawn wilson<ag4ve.us@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> whatever you get as long as the hardware isn't too strange. strange might be
> >>>> a gsm modem, fingerprint reader, dual mode graphics, no name 802.11 card -
> >>>> stuff like that.
> >>>
> >>> Not sure what you mean by a 'no name 802.11 card' - they all use the
> >>> same handful of chipsets, some of which have better linux support, and
> >>> some worse. Are 'no name' cards more likely to use one of the less
> >>> supported chipsets than brand name ones?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes. And use dodgy materials and shoddy engineering.
> >
> > The latter is indicated by common sense, but I'm not convinced of the
> > former. Your basis?
> >
>
> The same as why "they" use shoddy engineering: shave a few pennies
> here, a few pennies there, and you've got yourself a really cheap card.
>
> Might work great, might not.
But the question is, are cards with poor linux support generally
cheaper? Why should that be? The decision to support linux is
basically the decision to publish specs; once that's done, the
community will generally write a driver, even if the manufacturer
doesn't want to.
Celejar
--
foffl.sourceforge.net - Feeds OFFLine, an offline RSS/Atom aggregator
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Reply to: